How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Talk about anything and everything.

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby ThatNomad » 10 October 2021, 15:07

PopTart wrote:When it comes to the economy, I do prefer fiscal responsibility, I strongly believe in self reliance, I'm not a big fan of the welfare state, despite it having once provided for my parents and family. But as an adult, seeing my sister live in a four bedroom house, paid for by welfare, buying new cars, new clothes etc while getting more money a month than I earned working a fulltime job... hasn't enamoured me with the system. When people suggest she gets a job, she laughs about how much worse off she would be. Anyone who grew up on a council estate in the UK can tell similar stories.



This happens all too often here in the US as well. I think the only real solution is to have an audit done to qualify, and then periodically afterwards. I also think it should be an absolute prerequisite that you be either fully disabled, or actively looking for employment or currently employed but making too little to get by. That's how it worked here in Texas back the one time I had to take unemployment. I was required to report to the Workforce Commission at least once a week to show proof that I was applying for jobs, or to use their computers to do so, and take skill building classes.

Also, unpopular opinion time, but if you have money for cigarettes, drugs, or alcohol, you have money that could be being used to pay your way. Use of any of the above should be grounds for immediate removal of all benefits.

So I guess I'm a little bit like you in these respects. Probably a lot more centrist than I'd realized before reading what you said.
User avatar
ThatNomad
 
Posts: 164
+1s received: 78
Joined: 22 June 2020, 18:54
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby katzgar » 10 October 2021, 15:18

about 18% of LGBTQ voted for trump. We know trump had 60 anti LGBTQ executive orders. Internalized homophobia is in some of us. I cant imagine dating a gay trump supporter, thats a bar too low for me.
katzgar
 
Posts: 74
+1s received: 1
Joined: 30 September 2019, 12:03
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby ThatNomad » 10 October 2021, 15:38

katzgar wrote:about 18% of LGBTQ voted for trump. We know trump had 60 anti LGBTQ executive orders. Internalized homophobia is in some of us. I cant imagine dating a gay trump supporter, thats a bar too low for me.


Nah, that's straight up underneath the ground the bar is hovering over. That's just disgusting.
User avatar
ThatNomad
 
Posts: 164
+1s received: 78
Joined: 22 June 2020, 18:54
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby katzgar » 10 October 2021, 15:44

Bingo that
katzgar
 
Posts: 74
+1s received: 1
Joined: 30 September 2019, 12:03
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby pozboro » 11 October 2021, 04:09

contrary to the rightist rhetoric concerning most safety net programs, one has to reapply ever 6 or 12 months for the benefits. Nothing is assumed a done deal and the recipient of support has to re-prove that they qualify. Additionally, a number of states have added 'limits' to the amount of benefit one can receive during a given timespan. But let's not forgot that many of the benefit programs are tied to the number of children one has. Some argues this incentivizes the having of more children, to receive more benefits but I seriously doubt there are many in the US living in four bed-room houses and buying lots of new cars and stuff on whatever they get through welfare. Oh, every time someone wants to reform the safety net away they always trot out some example but seem to ignore the people who struggle from low wage job to low wage job, only to be fired because they missed a shift due to not having child care, etc. Lots of anecdotal evidence all around this discussion.

But more telling was the economic analysis done in relation to the enhanced unemployment benefits handed out during the first part of the pandemic. Right wingers are big on this idea that extra money kept people from returning to work - disincentivized work actually - but ending benefits didn't necessarily result in everyone suddenly out looking for work. It may have also slowed consumer spending and thus the recovery in places were benefits were killed earlier (red states) than allowed to sunset per the legislation passed by the Congress (blue states).

I also love how the right views inherited wealth as a God given right when talking about the importance of work. Society has no problem giving and giving to people who already have more money than we could earn/spend in our entire lifetime. How's that NOT an entitlement? What's the statistic? Something like 3% of the people control the same amount of wealth as something like the bottom 60% combined? We saw just how much the well-to-do are willing to bend the rules to their benefit in the recent college admissions scandals.

So it really can cut both ways.
User avatar
pozboro
 
Posts: 338
+1s received: 75
Joined: 4 June 2021, 20:43
Location: Oregon USA

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby PopTart » 11 October 2021, 04:23

pozboro wrote:contrary to the rightist rhetoric concerning most safety net programs, one has to reapply ever 6 or 12 months for the benefits. Nothing is assumed a done deal and the recipient of support has to re-prove that they qualify. Additionally, a number of states have added 'limits' to the amount of benefit one can receive during a given timespan. But let's not forgot that many of the benefit programs are tied to the number of children one has. Some argues this incentivizes the having of more children, to receive more benefits but I seriously doubt there are many in the US living in four bed-room houses and buying lots of new cars and stuff on whatever they get through welfare. Oh, every time someone wants to reform the safety net away they always trot out some example but seem to ignore the people who struggle from low wage job to low wage job, only to be fired because they missed a shift due to not having child care, etc. Lots of anecdotal evidence all around this discussion.

But more telling was the economic analysis done in relation to the enhanced unemployment benefits handed out during the first part of the pandemic. Right wingers are big on this idea that extra money kept people from returning to work - disincentivized work actually - but ending benefits didn't necessarily result in everyone suddenly out looking for work. It may have also slowed consumer spending and thus the recovery in places were benefits were killed earlier (red states) than allowed to sunset per the legislation passed by the Congress (blue states).

I also love how the right views inherited wealth as a God given right when talking about the importance of work. Society has no problem giving and giving to people who already have more money than we could earn/spend in our entire lifetime. How's that NOT an entitlement? What's the statistic? Something like 3% of the people control the same amount of wealth as something like the bottom 60% combined? We saw just how much the well-to-do are willing to bend the rules to their benefit in the recent college admissions scandals.

So it really can cut both ways.

I would be shocked if the US and UK system were the same.

However the UK benefit system exists in a kind of dual state. In which, it encompasses those people who are on meager hand outs, who genuinely struggle week to week, living hand to mouth, while at the same time, being structured in such a way, that cases such as my sisters are also fairly common. With people being eligible for additional payments for having children, but most importantly for having children with problems of any sort and the amount of money given can become quite large.

The universal credit system that has been established was supposed to address some of those issues and more but as with most reforms, nobody is happy with it and tbh, it is a mess, seemingly impacting those "hand to mouth" cases more than those living on the gravy train :shrug:

I feel the system here is too bloated for its own good.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 3510
+1s received: 2735
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby pozboro » 11 October 2021, 19:59

PopTart wrote:I feel the system here is too bloated for its own good.


could you elaborate on this part a bit more - I'm unclear if it's the system (bureaucracy, red tape) that is bloated or the rolls (by people on the rolls)
User avatar
pozboro
 
Posts: 338
+1s received: 75
Joined: 4 June 2021, 20:43
Location: Oregon USA

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby AGIS » 16 October 2021, 21:16

I'm pretty much Libertarian/Conservative, so I'd assume I'm further right than most of you. And here is why, and keep in mind, this is only my personal view/opinion. I don't advocate for hating anyone because of their political views.

I see Lefty politics as far more divisive than anything else. I believe it creates and instills a victimhood complex in many socially outclassed people, which leads them to not really try to better their situation. It also leads to a sort of... I dunno, "gate-keeping" by the Left, like cancel culture and whatnot. These things are a-typically Leftist. They seem more concentrated on removing rights from people as well. It doesn't matter if you advocated for gay rights, when you're trying to erode the 1st and 2nd amendments, mandate government vaccinations, and force people to wear masks in public. You can't do one thing good, then a bunch of bad, then say you're in the right because of the one good thing you did.

Just read an article this morning about how schools are canceling Halloween, Valentines and Christmas for students here in Michigan because of "inclusivity" issues. Like, what does that even mean? Okay, I get Christmas maybe from their mindset (being a religious holiday), but Valentines and Halloween? Who exactly is excluded from either of those? The Dave Chappell thing recently too, and many on the Left trying to cancel him. No comedians, holidays, etc etc. Like where does this end exactly? Is everything supposed to be some kind of bland gray amalgamation of Leftist principles?

It's the perpetually offended, "in your face" attitude. It's exhausting, frustrating, and destructive. The gate-keeping, white-shaming, hypocritical, ignorant nonsense with a complete lack of self awareness. Yesterday for instance, I saw a FB comment sections full of BLM profile pics screaming for life in prison and the DEATH penalty for the J6 rioters.... Yes, the irony. BLM rioted hard for almost two years, burned federal buildings, looted countless stores, ruined small business owners lives (many of whom were black) openly called for the death of police and public officials, literally killed people, took over a small part of DC, instilled a defacto government, and patrolled "their" area with AR15s and these are the people calling J6 an "insurrection", which lasted a handful of hours, and no one present was armed.

If thats not blatant lack of self awareness, I don't know what is. They also seem to forget that a hard-Left terrorist organization literally BOMBED that same building back in the 80s.

This is why I tend to stick to Righty politics. I like how hard-line Constitutional they can be. I see that document as a guarantee to our individual liberties. As close as you can get to an infallible governmental decree on the freedoms of the individual, and subjugation of the government. The Right seems more "level-headed" to me honestly. The Left seems to argue on a purely emotional stand point, where as the right seems to be more factually based. Not none of this speaks for ALL of the Left or the Right, obviously, it's just my experience with it all. And I used to be pretty extreme on the right. I think I'm more socially conservative because thats just how I was raised (I had a great upbringing in the rural South), and I more lean into Libertarian policies when it comes to government. Live and let live kind of approach. Don't hurt anyone, don't steal stuff, and all is well.

I should be able to buy a bag of weed and an AR15 as a wedding present (with no background check), tax free, on my way to my gay friends wedding using my non-taxable income, then get hammered all night and drive home the next day with no seat belt.

The government should only exist to punish those who violate the rights of others, and build infrastructure (even though its proven thats also better done by the private sector).

Lefty politics to me seem obsessed with regulation, mandation and the creation of more, and more laws, and expulsion of more and more individual rights. It all seems kinda like state worship using the guise of social justice and equality.
AGIS
 
Posts: 94
+1s received: 11
Joined: 16 April 2016, 23:58
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby AGIS » 16 October 2021, 21:19

ThatNomad wrote:
katzgar wrote:about 18% of LGBTQ voted for trump. We know trump had 60 anti LGBTQ executive orders. Internalized homophobia is in some of us. I cant imagine dating a gay trump supporter, thats a bar too low for me.


Nah, that's straight up underneath the ground the bar is hovering over. That's just disgusting.



I voted for him. I don't have internalized homophobia. I don't understand why you think he is homophobic. He was pro-gay marriage and LGBT rights long before Hillary ever was, and openly advocated for the LGBT community during his entire run for office.
AGIS
 
Posts: 94
+1s received: 11
Joined: 16 April 2016, 23:58
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby Derek » 16 October 2021, 22:46

AGIS wrote:
ThatNomad wrote:
katzgar wrote:about 18% of LGBTQ voted for trump. We know trump had 60 anti LGBTQ executive orders. Internalized homophobia is in some of us. I cant imagine dating a gay trump supporter, thats a bar too low for me.


Nah, that's straight up underneath the ground the bar is hovering over. That's just disgusting.



I voted for him. I don't have internalized homophobia. I don't understand why you think he is homophobic. He was pro-gay marriage and LGBT rights long before Hillary ever was, and openly advocated for the LGBT community during his entire run for office.

Didn't he issue an executive order to deny trans people the ability to serve in the military, and didn't his administration strip away federal nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people?

Actually, here's a timeline I found after a quick google search.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Anti-Transgender and Anti-LGBTQ Actions
July 23, 2020: The Department of Housing and Urban Development formally announced the rollback of a previous rule that protected transgender people from discrimination by homeless shelters and other housing services receiving federal funds.

June 19, 2020: The Department of Health and Human Services announced that it finalized the extensive rollback of health care discrimination rules, to eliminate the protections for transgender people experiencing discrimination in health care settings and/or by insurance companies denying transition-related care, as well as to weaken nondiscriminatory access to health care for those with Limited English Proficiency.

May 15, 2020: The Department of Education issued a letter declaring that the federal Title IX rule requires school to ban transgender students from participating in school sports, and threatening to withhold funding from Connecticut schools if they do not comply.

May 8, 2020: The Department of Health and Human Services published a final rule eliminating collection of sexual orientation data on foster youth and foster and adoptive parents and guardians and rejecting proposals to collect gender identity data.

May 6, 2020: The Department of Education published a final rule encouraging schools to dramatically weaken protections for student survivors of sexual violence and harassment, and eliminating a provision that encouraged religiously-affiliated schools to notify the Department and the public of their intent to discriminate on the basis of sex under a Title IX waiver.

March 26, 2020: The Department of Justice filed a court brief in the District of Connecticut in opposition to a Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference policy that allows transgender athletes to play sports with their peers.

February 27, 2020: The Department of Justice filed another court brief, this time in the Western District of Kentucky, expressing the view of the United States that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is not "a sufficient government interest" to overcome the objections of private businesses who want to deny "expressive" services such as photography services to LGBTQ people, and that these businesses must be permitted to opt out of complying with local nondiscrimination laws.

January 16, 2020: Nine federal agencies - Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, and the U.S. Agency on International Development - all proposed rule changes that would eliminate the rights of people receiving help from federal programs to request a referral if they have a concern or problem with a faith-based provider and to receive written notice of their rights; and that would encourage agencies to claim religious exemptions to deny help to certain people while receiving federal funds.

November 5, 2019: The Department of Labor proposed to exempt the TRICARE health care program for military dependents and retirees from requirements not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. It is not immediately apparent whether TRICARE intends to make any changes in its benefits policies. Currently, TRICARE covers hormone therapy and counseling for transgender retirees and dependents, but DOD interprets the TRICARE statute to exclude transition-related surgery regardless of medical necessity.=

November 1, 2019: The Department of Health and Human Services announced it would not enforce, and planned to repeal, regulations prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and religion in all HHS grant programs. These include programs to address the HIV, opioid, and youth homelessness epidemics, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars in other health and human service programs.

November 1, 2019: The Department of Education published final regulations permitting religious schools to ignore nondiscrimination standards set by accrediting agencies.

September 19, 2019: The Department of Health and Human Services cancelled a plan to explicitly prohibit hospitals from discriminating against LGBTQ patients as a requirement of Medicare and Medicaid funds.

August 16, 2019: The Department of Justice filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that federal law “does not prohibit discrimination against transgender persons based on their transgender status.”

August 14, 2019: The Department of Labor announced a proposed rule that would radically expand the ability of federal contractors to exempt themselves from equal employment opportunity requirements, allowing for-profit and non-profit employers to impose “religious criteria” on employees that could include barring LGBTQ employees.

July 15, 2019: The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security announced an interim final rule that would block the vast majority of asylum-seekers from entering the United States, with deadly consequences for those fleeing anti-LGBTQ violence.

July 8, 2019: The Department of State established a “Commission on Unalienable Rights” aimed at narrowing our country’s human rights advocacy to fit with the “natural law” and “natural rights” views of social conservatives, stating it would seek to “be vigilant that human rights discourse not be corrupted or hijacked or used for dubious or malignant purposes.” (Shortly thereafter, the State Department official tasked with coordinating the new commission was fired for “abusive” management including homophobic remarks.)

July 3, 2019: The Department of Housing and Urban Development removed requirements that applicants for homelessness funding maintain anti-discrimination policies and demonstrate efforts to serve LGBT people and their families, who are more likely to be homeless.

May 24, 2019: The Department of Health and Human Services published a proposed rule that would remove all recognition that federal law prohibits transgender patients from discrimination in health care. Courts across the nation have ruled otherwise.

May 22, 2019: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced a plan to gut regulations prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in HUD-funded homeless shelters.

May 14, 2019: President Trump announced his opposition to the Equality Act (H.R. 5), the federal legislation that would confirm and strengthen civil rights protections for LGBTQ Americans and others.

May 2, 2019: The Department of Health and Human Services published a final rule encouraging hospital officials, staff, and insurance companies to deny care to patients, including transgender patients, based on religious or moral beliefs. This vague and broad rule was immediately challenged in court.

April 19, 2019: The Department of Health and Human Service announced a proposed rule to abandon data collection on sexual orientation of foster youth and foster and adoptive parents and guardians.

April 12, 2019: The Department of Defense put President Trump’s ban on transgender service members into effect, putting service members at risk of discharge if they come out or are found out to be transgender.

March 13, 2019: The Department of Defense laid out its plans for implementing its ban on transgender troops, giving an official implementation date of April 12.

January 23, 2019: The Department of Health & Human Services' Office of Civil Rights granted an exemption to adoption and foster care agencies in South Carolina, allowing religiously-affiliated services to discriminate against current and aspiring LGBTQ caregivers.

November 23, 2018: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) erased critical guidance that helped federal agency managers understand how to support transgender federal workers and respect their rights, replacing clear and specific guidance reflecting applicable law and regulations with vaguely worded guidance hostile to transgender workers. While this guidance change did not change the rights of transgender federal workers under applicable law, regulations, Executive Orders, and case law, it is likely to cause confusion and promote discrimination within the nation's largest employer.

November 19, 2018: The Department of State appealed a court order directing it to issue a passport with a gender-neutral designation to a non-binary, intersex applicant.

October 25, 2018: U.S. representatives at the United Nations worked to remove references to transgender people in UN human rights documents.

October 24, 2018: The Department of Justice submitted a brief to the Supreme Court aruging that it is legal to discriminate against transgender employee, contradicting court rulings that say protections under Title VII in the workplace don’t extend to transgender workers.

October 21, 2018: The New York Times reported that the Department of Health and Human Services proposed in a memo to change the legal definition of sex under Title IX, which would would leave transgender people vulnerable to discrimination.

August 10, 2018: The Department of Labor released a new directive for Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) staff encouraging them to grant broad religious exemptions to federal contractors with religious-based objections to complying with nondiscrimination laws. It also deleted material from an OFCCP FAQ on LGBT nondiscrimination protections that previously clarified the limited scope of allowable religious exemptions.

June 11, 2018: Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that the federal government would no longer recognized gang violence or domestic violence as grounds for asylum, adopting a legal interpretation that could lead to rejecting most LGBT asylum-seekers.

May 11, 2018: The Bureau of Prisons in the Department of Justice adopted an illegal policy of almost entirely housing transgender people in federal prison facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, rolling back existing protections.

April 11, 2018: The Department of Justice proposed to strip data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity of teens from the National Crime Victimization Survey.

March 23, 2018: The Trump Administration announced an implementation plan for its discriminatory ban on transgender military service members.

March 20, 2018: The Department of Education reiterated that the Trump administration would refuse to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity, countering multiple court rulings reaffirming that transgender students are protected under Title IX.

March 5, 2018: The Department Housing and Urban Development Secretary announced a change to its official mission statement by removing its commitment of inclusive and discrimination-free communities from the statement.

February 18, 2018: The Department of Education announced it will summarily dismiss complaints from transgender students involving exclusion from school facilities and other claims based solely on gender identity discrimination.

January 26, 2018: The Department of Health and Human Services proposed a rule that encourages medical providers to use religious grounds to deny treatment to transgender people, people who need reproductive care, and others.

January 18, 2018: The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights opened a "Conscience and Religious Freedom Division" that will promote discrimination by health care providers who can cite religious or moral reasons for denying care.

December 29, 2017: President Trump fired the White House Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. The transgender community is disproportionately affected by HIV.

December 20, 2017: President Trump nominated Gordon P. Giampietro to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Giampietro called marriage equality “an assault on nature.” Giampietro's nomination was eventually withdrawn.

December 14, 2017: Staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were instructed not to use the words “transgender,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “fetus,” “evidence-based,” and “science-based” in official documents.

October 6, 2017: The Justice Department released a sweeping "license to discriminate" allowing federal agencies, government contractors, government grantees, and even private businesses to engage in illegal discrimination, as long as they can cite religious reasons for doing so.

October 5, 2017: The Justice Department released a memo instructing Department of Justice attorneys to take the legal position that federal law does not protect transgender workers from discrimination.

October 2, 2017: President Trump nominated Kyle Duncan to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Duncan has dedicated his career to limiting the rights of transgender people, and even defended the anti-trans parties in the North Carolina’s infamous HB2 debacle and the school district that discriminated against Gavin Grimm.

September 7, 2017: The Justice Department filed a legal brief on behalf of the United States in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing for a constitutional right for businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and, implicitly, gender identity.

September 7, 2017: President Trump nominated Gregory G. Katsas to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Katsas played a central role in helping Trump ban qualified transgender people serving in the miiltary.

September 7, 2017: President Trump nominated Matthew J. Kacsmaryk to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Kacsmaryk opposes LGBTQ protections in housing, employment, & and health care, and called transgender people a “delusion.”

September 7, 2017: President Trump nominated Jeff Mateer to become a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Mateer called transgender children part of “Satan’s plan” and openly supported debunked and dangerous “conversion therapy.” Mateer’s nomination was eventually withdrawn.

August 25, 2017: President Trump released a memo directing Defense Department to move forward with developing a plan to discharge transgender military service members and to maintain a ban on recruitment.

July 26, 2017: President Trump announced, via Twitter, that "the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military."

July 26, 2017: The Justice Department filed a legal brief on behalf of the United States in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or, implicitly, gender identity.

July 13, 2017: President Trump nominated Mark Norris to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Norris has worked to make it easier to discriminate against LGBTQ people, and even worked to discriminate specifically against transgender kids.

June 14, 2017: The Department of Education withdrew its finding that an Ohio school district discriminated against a transgender girl. The Department gave no explanation for withdrawing the finding, which a federal judge upheld.

May 2, 2017: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a plan to roll back regulations interpreting the Affordable Care Act’s nondiscrimination provisions to protect transgender people.

April 14, 2017: The Justice Department abandoned its historic lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s anti-transgender law. It did so after North Carolina replaced HB2 with a different anti-transgender law known as “HB 2.0.”

April 4, 2017: The Departments of Justice and Labor cancelled quarterly conference calls with LGBT organizations; on these calls, which had happened for years, government attorneys shared information on employment laws and cases.

March 31, 2017: The Justice Department announced it would review (and likely seek to scale back) numerous civil rights settlement agreements with police departments. These settlements were put in places where police departments were determined to be engaging in discriminatory and abusive policing, including racial and other profiling. Many of these agreements include critical protections for LGBT people.

March 2017: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) removed links to four key resource documents from its website, which informed emergency shelters on best practices for serving transgender people facing homelessness and complying with HUD regulations.

March 28, 2017: The Census Bureau retracted a proposal to collect demographic information on LGBT people in the 2020 Census.

March 24, 2017: The Justice Department cancelled a long-planned National Institute of Corrections broadcast on “Transgender Persons in Custody: The Legal Landscape.”

March 13, 2017: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that its national survey of older adults, and the services they need, would no longer collect information on LGBT participants. HHS initially falsely claimed in its Federal Register announcement that it was making “no changes” to the survey.

March 13, 2017: The State Department announced the official U.S. delegation to the UN’s 61st annual Commission on the Status of Women conference would include two outspoken anti-LGBT organizations, including a representative of the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM): an organization designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

March 10, 2017: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced it would withdraw two important agency-proposed policies designed to protect LGBT people experiencing homelessness. One proposed policy would have required HUD-funded emergency shelters to put up a poster or "notice" to residents of their right to be free from anti-LGBT discrimination under HUD regulations.

The other announced a survey to evaluate the impact of the LGBTQ Youth Homelessness Prevention Initiative, implemented by HUD and other agencies over the last three years. This multi-year project should be evaluated, and with this withdrawal, we may never learn what worked best in the project to help homeless LGBTQ youth.

March 8, 2017: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) removed demographic questions about LGBT people that Centers for Independent Living must fill out each year in their Annual Program Performance Report. This report helps HHS evaluate programs that serve people with disabilities.

March 2, 2017: The Department of Justice abandoned its request for a preliminary injunction against North Carolina’s anti-transgender House Bill 2, which prevented North Carolina from enforcing HB 2. This was an early sign that the Administration was giving up defending trans people (later, on April 14, it withdrew the lawsuit completely).

March 1, 2017: The Department of Justice took the highly unusual step of declining to appeal a nationwide preliminary court order temporarily halting enforcement of the Affordable Care Act’s nondiscrimination protections for transgender people. The injunction prevents HHS from taking any action to enforce transgender people's rights from health care discrimination.

February 22, 2017: The Departments of Justice and Education withdrew landmark 2016 guidance explaining how schools must protect transgender students under the federal Title IX law.

January 31, 2017: President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch has a history of anti-transgender rulings.

January 20, 2017: On President Trump’s inauguration day, the adminstration scrubbed all mentions of LGBTQ people from the websites of the White House, Department of State, and Department of Labor.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6940
+1s received: 2698
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby AGIS » 16 October 2021, 22:54

The majority of your list doesn't have anything to do with the position of the President. And the Trans-ban for the military was the right movie. That kind of think becomes an issue in the field, fighting wars. We need out fighting men and women to be at top capacity. Requiring hormones, surgeries, changing of legal documents, therapy and all else that comes with that world, the military is NOT a place to do that. It is not a conducive, cushy environment. I would know, I did it for six years, and served in Iraq as a machine gunner.

Saying the trans-ban is homophobic is like saying not allowing the morbidly obese in is ableism.
AGIS
 
Posts: 94
+1s received: 11
Joined: 16 April 2016, 23:58
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby Derek » 16 October 2021, 23:24

AGIS wrote:The majority of your list doesn't have anything to do with the position of the President.

It was his administration?

And the Trans-ban for the military was the right movie. That kind of think becomes an issue in the field, fighting wars. We need out fighting men and women to be at top capacity. Requiring hormones, surgeries, changing of legal documents, therapy and all else that comes with that world, the military is NOT a place to do that. It is not a conducive, cushy environment. I would know, I did it for six years, and served in Iraq as a machine gunner.

The military provides medical treatment including hormones for a variety of purposes, notably contraception and to treat erectile dysfunction; providing support for trans servicemembers would be a marginal cost. In a similar vein, extremely few active servicemembers seek sex reassignment surgery. Recent surveys show that military personnel overwhelmingly support the inclusion of trans people. The ability to serve in the military holds strong social significance - it's a good in itself that should require exceptional justification to revoke.

Saying the trans-ban is homophobic is like saying not allowing the morbidly obese in is ableism.

I might agree if the rationale held water, and if I was the kind of idiot who was able to conveniently forget about the existence of politics. The concerns about trans people serving are uniformly petty and overblown. The actual reason for the ban was to play to the base, because trans people have become a totem in our shitty, stupid culture war.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6940
+1s received: 2698
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby AGIS » 16 October 2021, 23:59

His administration? Sure. But if you want to go that route, than I can say Biden has been worse. The Right constantly says, for example, "the gas prices/inflation aren't Bidens fault!". Does that that same logic apply? After all, it's his administration...

Contraception and E.D. are far less complex than SRS. Comparing those is like comparing apples with B51 Bombers. And marginal cost is still just that, cost. People seem to be forgetting what the purpose of the military is. It's to fight and win wars. In order to do that, you need the most able people possible. Not people with gender dysphoria who require surgeries, therapies, and drugs. That shit turns you into a liability, not an assed.

SGT:"We're taking mortar fire! Where is our RTO! We need backup now!"
PVT:" Sorry Sarge, but our comms guy is out on leave recovering from SRS and getting jaw line surgery. Guess we just gotta...you know, die. As long as we don't look like bigots or whatever."

The concept is ridiculous. Sure, people are going to need surgery and medical leave for a multitude of issues, but you don't actively invite in people you KNOW are going to need/want these things. This is why we have to go through EXTENSIVE pre-deployment training and medical evaluations. Got cavities? You're not deploying. Tinnitus? Not deploying. Shin splints? Not deploying. Uncorrected vision issues? Not deploying. So, why in the absolute fuck would anyone think it's a good idea to bring in someone who literally wants to have a life altering surgery(s) which require months, maybe YEARS of time to recover from, which also require extensive upkeep (plastic surgeries, pharmaceuticals, doctor visits, etc etc)? The military operates as a unit. We need all the gears to be well oiled and ready for whatever. It's not a play house, it's not a company with diversity quotas, it's not the worlds biggest SJW convention. All of you, your emotional baggage, your aspirations and life all take a back seat until you get that golden ticket (DD214) and you're a civilian again.

As for "extremely few members" seek SRS, well, that's still to many. It's nothing but a liability. Theres no benefit for the military, and there is a risk factor, regardless of how big or small.

As for "many active duty personnel support inclusion"; that study is nonsense. It even admits to being a "RDS", respondent-driven survey. To me that means the only people who responded are the people who are into these kind of politics. Its a big time flaw, and the samples are people who have an obvious bias. And I can tell you, sitting right here as proof, of the countless thousands of soldiers I met over the years, there are far, FAR more that dislike the idea. I could go onto Facebook right now, go into my old Companies page and run a poll, and I guarantee the answer would be against allowing Trans people in. And what would the social significance be? We are taking on a liability to appease a tiny fraction of society which likely have no interest in joining anyways? Who wins there? It doesn't make any sense.

Taking on liability to literal life and death combat operations is not "petty and overblown". I was all for allowing women into the Infantry (as long as they passed the MALE standard), but Trans people? I can't justify that. Its just taking the slot of someone who doesn't need countless surgeries, and doesn't have dysphoria, and doesn't require special medical accommodations. Its has a far higher potential to remove a much needed body on the battlefield, and it offers nothing in return. Theres no "up side" to having them serve. Only potential negatives.

Wokeness doesn't belong in the military. It's not a place for PC politics, social justice or any of this retarded culture war nonsense. The military is already being eroded awy from the inside by Wokesters. This comparison comes to mind; which of these two Armies would you be afraid of? Which one of these shows military prowess?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OiYrRy3mzE
AGIS
 
Posts: 94
+1s received: 11
Joined: 16 April 2016, 23:58
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby Derek » 17 October 2021, 00:30

AGIS wrote:His administration? Sure. But if you want to go that route, than I can say Biden has been worse. The Right constantly says, for example, "the gas prices/inflation aren't Bidens fault!". Does that that same logic apply? After all, it's his administration...

The list I quoted before were things done specifically through Trump's executive authority via his administration. You said he wasn't homophobic or transphobic. Why doesn't that list have any bearing on that question?

I'll repeat what I said: his administration stripped away federal nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people. That's a sufficient basis for the accusations made above.

That shit turns you into a liability, not an assed.

This reasoning has been soundly rejected through every objective measure. I don't know what else to say about it.

As for "many active duty personnel support inclusion"; that study is nonsense. It even admits to being a "RDS", respondent-driven survey. To me that means the only people who responded are the people who are into these kind of politics.

It doesn't mean that - RDS methodology entails variance controls - but fine. Support for LGB and especially T people is in significant flux. The numbers, whatever they really are, likely will not remain static. It was only around seven years ago that most Americans opposed marriage equality. In 1994, 75% of male servicemembers opposed allowing gay people to serve.

We are taking on a liability to appease a tiny fraction of society which likely have no interest in joining anyways?

Just as a side note, transgender people are around twice as likely to have served the military than a member of the general population.

Wokeness doesn't belong in the military. It's not a place for PC politics, social justice or any of this retarded culture war nonsense.

Likewise I'd say it's not a place for reactionary politics, and given the broader context, I don't know how else I'd categorize Trump's actions on the subject.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6940
+1s received: 2698
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby AGIS » 17 October 2021, 01:11

Okay, then you also blame his opposition, Biden, for his pro-segregation notions in the 70s, the border crisis, the Afghanistan fiasco, and the gas prices, right? I'm just curious to see if you're applying the same logic.

As for your link, I'm not going to read an entire book on the military written by two people with little to no military service under their belt. I'll go ahead and rip it down one Executive point after another;

1) This commission has been convened to determine whether US military policies that
ban transgender service members are based on medically sound reasons. We find that
there is no compelling medical rationale for banning transgender military service, and
that eliminating the ban would advance a number of military interests, including enabling
commanders to better care for their service members.

-How exactly would this enable commanders the better care for their subordinates? Does having a Trans person in your platoon mean you somehow, through LGBT magic, get better food in the chow-hall? They say it would advance military interests? How exactly? That doesn't make any sense at all. "No compelling rationale", because SRS doesn't exist or something? Trans people have a huge percentage of suicides compared to others, yet we want them walking about with rifles, explosives and machine guns?

2) Medical regulations requiring the discharge of all transgender personnel are
inconsistent with how the military regulates medical and psychological conditions, and
arbitrary in that medical conditions related to transgender identity appear to be the only
gender-related conditions requiring discharge irrespective of fitness for duty.

-Nonsense. I've seen people get pushed out on medical for a sprained ankle. The truth is, even if Trans people are chaptered out at a higher rate, it's because the military has no idea on how to deal with that, which is yet another reason to bar them from entry. Psychological conditions and other stuff, they've been dealing with for generations.

3) The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders 5th ed. (DSM–5) no longer classifies gender non-conformity as a mental
illness. While military regulations are updated to reflect revisions of DSM for nontransgender-related conditions, regulations have not been amended to reflect scientific
consensus about gender non-conformity.

-It doesn't matter if it is or is not a disorder. It's still a liability. This point is entirely based on semantics.

4) The prohibition on medically necessary cross-sex hormone treatment is inconsistent
with the fact that many non-transgender military personnel rely on prescribed
medications, including anabolic steroids, even while deployed in combat zones, and is
based on inaccurate understandings of the complexity, risks and efficacy of such
treatments.

-Incorrect. I was deployed. Steroid use was expressly forbidden. It dehydrates you. You don't want that in the desert. This makes me think a lot of their "argument" is propped up on assumptions and stereo-types.

5) Regulations that prohibit transgender service members from obtaining medically
necessary gender-confirming surgery are harmful to the service members and inconsistent
with policy concerning other reconstructive surgeries that service members are allowed to
have.

-Non-trans members are not usually permitted to have reconstructive surgeries (unless its a direct result of combat injury). I go to the VA for my healthcare. They wont even give me Lasik for my bad vision because it's "reconstructive/vanity" surgery. Again, I feel as though they are making things up. Not to mention, SRS is an extreme surgery. It takes you out of the fight for a long time. Some guy getting a beauty mark removed isn't on the same level.

6) The ban on transgender military service compromises continuity of care between the
Military Health Service and Veterans Health Administration, undermining an important
goal that officials from both systems have endorsed.

-What officials, exactly? What goal, exactly? This is a dubious claim if I've ever seen one. I'm assuming they mean something about healthcare related to Trans service members? Well that debacle wouldnt exist if they were barred from entry. And if as previously stated, there are so few members seeking SRS, then why does there need to be this massive goal between the MHS and the VA?

7) Military regulations should be stripped of enlistment disqualifications for transgender
conditions, whether defined physically or mentally, as well as retention provisions that
specify gender identity disorder as grounds for administrative separation. Transgender
personnel should be treated in accordance with established medical standards of care, as
is done with all other medical conditions.

-This is a request, not a point based in fact. Feels childish and emotional compared to the professional image they are trying to front.

8) Senior leaders should rely on the experiences and standards of other militaries and US
federal agencies in formulating administrative policy to address fitness testing, records
and identification, uniforms, housing and privacy

-Why? One shoe doesn't fit every foot. Our PT tests are different for a reason, our uniforms are different for a reason, our records are mostly the exact same (no idea where that one came from), and housing and privacy is essentially the same across the board as well.

All of these points make no sense, and were written by people with no real actual military experience. And no, the Coast Guard isn't the military. Nobody gives a shit what it says on paper. Now, you are trying to save the credit of RDS style sampling by saying they have controls in place in order to assure a non-biased outcome. Care to explain to me what exactly those are?

"Transgendered people are twice as likely to serve...."

Thats still a tiny, minute fraction. Point is null and void. And I think you're confusing being "reactionary" with being "effective". People have seem to have forgotten the entire purpose of the military. You separate the weak from the strong, you negate liability. You work as unit to achieve a goal or a victory. Injecting people who need surgeries, therapy, and who already have a high suicide rate and high percent of mental disorders is NOT conducive to an effective military unit.

And you never answered my question. Which military in that link I sent you would you be more afraid of fighting?
AGIS
 
Posts: 94
+1s received: 11
Joined: 16 April 2016, 23:58
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby Derek » 17 October 2021, 01:19

AGIS wrote:Okay, then you also blame his opposition, Biden, for his pro-segregation notions in the 70s, the border crisis, the Afghanistan fiasco, and the gas prices, right?

Yes.

As for your link, I'm not going to read an entire book on the military written by two people with little to no military service under their belt.

Then why respond? All your point are elucidated on in the study.

And you never answered my question. Which military in that link I sent you would you be more afraid of fighting?

I confess I have a rather dim view of the military, and to what extent the sissification of our armed sources has a deleterious effect on its readiness and lethality, I'm inclined to view it as a positive.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6940
+1s received: 2698
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby AGIS » 17 October 2021, 01:58

Derek wrote:I confess I have a rather dim view of the military, and to what extent the sissification of our armed sources has a deleterious effect on its readiness and lethality, I'm inclined to view it as a positive.


Why is it a positive that our military is less lethal? Or am I misreading what you meant?
AGIS
 
Posts: 94
+1s received: 11
Joined: 16 April 2016, 23:58
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby Derek » 17 October 2021, 02:05

Because other than the Coast Guard, I see the American military as an institution that does net harm. But that's beside the point because the question concerns the premise that banning transgender people from serving has a rational basis.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6940
+1s received: 2698
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby AGIS » 17 October 2021, 03:46

Derek wrote:Because other than the Coast Guard, I see the American military as an institution that does net harm. But that's beside the point because the question concerns the premise that banning transgender people from serving has a rational basis.


A net harm? I'd really like to understand this logic. Do you have any idea how many trucks of food and water, clothing and books I delivered to kids personally in Iraq? Or my units peace keeping mission in Egypt? Or the US military doctors that literally save lives of TCN (third country nationals) on an actual daily basis? Or the fact we are essentially the only ones taking a real fight to actual psychopathic extremists? You know, the same ones that think it's justified to throws LGBT people off of rooftops and hang them from construction equipment. You know, the same guys that burn people alive, and run over live captives with tank treads? So, I'd like to know how smoking those freaks is a "net harm" to literally any rationally minded person.

Does the US military fuck up sometimes? Yup! In extraordinary ways as well. But to say it does a "net harm" is absolutely ridiculous. I'm guessing you don't know much about the military, its operations, or how it actually works. Wishing your own country to have a weak military is absolutely asinine, especially considering that a very large portion of people out there who hate the US would absolutely love to carve people like yourself up in to little pieces. You're sitting in one of the most gay friendly countries on earth, and you want it to have weak defenses... Think about that for a second.

I'm getting the vibe that you're extremely sheltered from the world outside the US.
AGIS
 
Posts: 94
+1s received: 11
Joined: 16 April 2016, 23:58
Country: United States (us)

Re: How many gays guys believe in gay rights but not left-wing?

Unread postby pozboro » 17 October 2021, 03:58

I don't have strong hopes for this discussion - peace out.
User avatar
pozboro
 
Posts: 338
+1s received: 75
Joined: 4 June 2021, 20:43
Location: Oregon USA

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], dseag2, Eryx, Mojeek [Bot], rogonandi, Severelius, UtopiaFreedom, Yandex [Bot] and 152 guests