'Anti-transgender legislation' - what's being referred to here?

[EqualitySt]

My employers have a celebrate Pride article on the intranet which states

‘’Memorials are held during this month for those members of the community who have been lost, and awareness is raised for issues affecting the LGBTQ+ community, such as the current wave of anti-transgender legislation’’.

I queried with HR what exactly this was referring to and they changed it to 'legislation in the US'.

I have a meeting with HR tomorrow to discuss this, and other things and would like to go armed with an idea of what legislation they mean. Can anyone help here?

Is it the Parental Rights Bill? Are there also rules being passed relating to collegiate level sports?

If anyone can provide info and references I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks in advance.

They are referring to a slew of legislation primarily in red states in the US which ban "gender affirming" care for those under 18 - in other words, puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, double mastectomies.

I don't think any state has managed to advance any ban on surgery/hormones/the whole shebang for adults. Just those under 18 who, in the US, cannot legally buy an alcoholic drink for another 3 years.

There has also been legislation to ban transgender athletes competing in their non-biological group.

Most americans - right left and center - think minors should not be medicalised and biological males should not be in women's sports. With regard to the medical bit we wish the state would butt out and actual medics would step up and look at what is happening and give a considered opinion based on research - much like the Dutch and other nordic countries have done and UK has done with GIDS/Tavistock. But not happening.

But then again most americans want gun control and abortion access and we're not getting that either.

Other states - like California - are trying to legislate the opposite. you MUST allow biological males in women's sports and you cannot refuse puberty blockers etc.

No one talks about men in women's prisons because hardly anyone gives a fuck about women in prison.

It's a shit show tbh.

If I were you I'd go in and ask them to specify which states in the US - as, for example, California and Massachusetts would be dismayed to be included in this blanket (stupid) statement - which came straight from a website.

Also ask them will they reference current anti LGBT legislation in Nigeria.

or you could just not bother. I wouldn't blame you.

I'm sure someone smarter than me will be on soon. But this is my view from the US.

I think Pallisers is on the right track mentioning anti-LGBT laws in Nigeria - but why stop there?

Same-sex relations are penalised far more often and far more severely than "forms of gender expression".

HR perhaps need to be made aware of this and also that the drop in public support and tolerance for LGB people is a greater and growing threat to more people than the passage of child protection legislation in a few US States.

Perhaps HR is also unaware that the surge in numbers of detransitioners includes many young lesbians, gay men and people with autism who have been sterilised and suffered irreversible harm due to being subjected to experimental transgender medicalisation as children?

Also that transgender medicine and surgeries are particularly popular in virulently homophobic societies as well as supposedly "progressive" administrations. Both seem committed to "gay eugenics".

Surely, you could argue, it would be better to work to eradicate homophobia than to make it easier for persecuted LGB people to resort to double mastectomies, castration and attempting to pass as the opposite sex, ie. in order to escape being stoned to death in some societies or bullied in school and a source of shame for their parents in others?

#OUTLAWED“ - THE LOVE THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME”
https://features.hrw.org/features/features/lgbt_laws/

What could HR do to increase awareness of the horrific punishments suffered by gay men and lesbians where same-sex relations are banned? How could the company ensure that decreasing public support and tolerance for gay men and lesbians does not impact its employees and customers? Trans people have been so much in the news that everyone seems to have forgotten that the LGB part of LGBT needs as much if not more support to reverse the tide of negative public opinion.

In order to raise awareness, HR should not shy away the sensitive issue that homophobia is more a feature of some demographics than others and should commit to tackling this appropriately in order to be effective.

Britain may be reaching ‘peak acceptance’ of homosexuality

"In 2010, 58% of Black and South Asian 16-44 year olds believed same-sex relationships were always wrong (down from 67% in 1990) - in contrast, only 12% of white respondents in this age group held this view (down from 46%)."

https://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/peak-acceptance-of-homosexuality/

Gay men have been murdered in the UK because they are gay, lesbians have been physically assaulted because they are lesbians. By contrast, trans people are so safe are in the UK that there have been more trans murderers than trans people murdered:

Trans homicides in the UK: a closer look at the numbers

2008 - 2017: Transgender individuals who were victims of homicide in the UK in the past decade = 7 (all biological males)

2008 - 2017: Homicides committed by transgender individuals in the UK in the past decade = 12 (all biological males)

https://transcrimeuk.com/2017/11/16/trans-homicides-in-the-uk-a-closer-look-at-the-numbers/

I'd ask why they are concentrating on the US where it is legal to be gay or trans. Why not look at Iran where it is illegal to be gay and the punishment is death.

But not only is it legal to be trans but the government subsides the surgery.

If they are talking about the USA then why are they not including, "trans away the gay" where conservative Christian parents cannot cope with a gay child but push them down the trans route and although the legislation might appear, "anti trans" is actually protecting gay children until they are 18.

There are also African countries, eg Uganda where it is illegal to be gay with harsh punishments. Brian Wasswa was beaten to death in his own home.

Why are they ignoring the very severe penalties in some countries and concentrating on US legislation that is not anti trans but safeguarding?

Or look at India where trans people are legally a 'third sex'.

If they are looking outside the UK / Europe why only look at a first world country that doesn't ban people from being trans or gay or both?

Love you challenging the narrative OP!

id been avoiding this work survey for weeks until the reminders started coming in daily, so I did it, and then in the feedback box let them know I tarried because I felt offended by their first q - what is your gender identity. I don’t have one, I wrote, I have a sex, and those not happy with theirs should have to tick the prefer not to say box instead of me.

The less employers put up with this nonsense hopefully the less of it we’ll get.

I can't believe HR come out with this tripe. Why should you even have to search for the legal stuff to support you questioning their original stuff in the intranet. It's just ridiculous. They shouldn't even be putting stuff like that up.

Florida kind of limited things for adults, in that it needs to be done by a doctor and you have to see them in person.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/trans-adults-florida-blindsided-new-law-also-limits-access-health-care-rcna87723

It’s amazing that insisting that you have to actually see a doctor (in person) is being positioned as removing access to care. Surely it’s insisting on proper care.

The new law that bans gender-affirming care for minors also mandates that adult patients seeking trans health care sign an informed consent form. It also requires a physician to oversee any health care related to transitioning, and for people to see that doctor in person. Those rules have proven particularly onerous because many people received care from nurse practitioners and used telehealth. The law also made it a crime to violate the new requirements.

It is interesting that trans people are being encouraged to demand inferior care. Why are TRAs championing lack of consent procedures, not seeing a qualified medical doctor and never being examined in person? It should be a scandal that treatments with life long consequences are not being done with proper medical care.

The only beneficiaries of this stuff are the medical companies who can make money from nurses prescribing hormones to people they’ve never examined over the phone.

I’m assuming that, in the Florida example, having to see a qualified doctor in person is much more expensive than using a nurse practitioner and ‘telehealth’ services. So there’ll be self-funding adults who are priced out of the process.

Now this may not be a bad thing for those people in the long term, particularly given the long term complications and risks to trans ‘healthcare’ procedures. But I think “onerous” is probably an accurate description, from the financially challenged patient’s POV.