Reminds me of a guy I went to high school with. He’d always have these off-brand porn mags that had cross dressers and trans women in them. He’s now a frothing Republican who spouts anti-trans comments at the drop of a hat.
Nothing I didn't know; but to have it nailed to the wall, so they can't slither around with "but we're juuuuuuust asking queeeeeestiiiiooonsss " is helpful. I have centrist-dem ex-friends who got TERF-ified by that fucking shit.
Some good news for New Yorkers! Standing Up for Trans New Yorkers: Mayor Mamdani Launches $15 Million Plan to Expand Access to Gender-Affirming Care Source: https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/n...ns-new-yorkers--mayor-mamdani-launches--15-mi When Mandani allowed hospitals to set the minimum age for transgender care at 19, I was deeply concerned he was going to start backpedaling on his promises, but this is an excellent sign that he hasn't actually given up. The hope was for $65 million total, but considering the uphill battle he's facing nationwide at the moment and how the federal government is desperately trying to destroy any protections for trans people, this is a good first step.
$15 million for that. How much to keep violent, crazy addicts off the street? Who pays, and did they all agree to those priorities?
For fucks sake. Why is it that the dumbest people in the world can never find the time to do a simple google search but can always find the time to flap their gums? The NYPD’s annual budget cost is ~$11b. If NYC was a country and the NYPD its military it would come in at around 30th in the world in terms of spending. Behind Mexico but ahead of Vietnam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures?wprov=sfti1
I'm sure it would be repetitious to link all the various outraged reaction to the SCOTUS decision (even though it was entirely expected) and I do worry that this is just designed to serve as a lever to continue to establish a legal precedent that trans people are not entitled to equal protection under the law and will be cited in other cases in the future. That said, here's a more moderated take from a trans lawyer who's widely respected in the community: The ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. leaves open the door to inclusive policies, writes attorney Shannon Minter. SCOTUS leaves door open to trans-inclusive sports policies | Advocate.com On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (decided together with Little v. Hecox) that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause prevents states from barring transgender girls from girls’ sports. But the majority opinion, written by Justice Kavanaugh, is a narrow one, and its limits are significant. Here are the most important. It permits these bans—it doesn’t require them The Court held that states and schools may exclude transgender girls from girls’ and women’s teams. It did not hold that they must. The decision removes a constitutional and statutory obstacle to the bans; it does not impose them. This ruling does not require states and schools that have chosen not to discriminate against transgender girls to abandon those inclusive policies. The Court pointedly declined to foreclose inclusion. It left open the question of whether schools that want to let transgender girls play on girls’ teams may do so. In a key footnote, the Court called this a “distinct question,” not presented in this case, and stressed that “[n]othing in this opinion is intended to decide” it. That question is now moving through the lower courts, and schools that welcome transgender athletes remain free to adopt and defend inclusive policies. It is limited to the sports context The Court repeatedly emphasized that sports are distinct, and it tied both halves of its analysis, the Title IX holding and the equal protection holding, to that distinctiveness. The majority drew an explicit contrast with “a typical employment or educational opportunity where equal protection often may require that the government generally treat an individual without regard to the individual’s sex.” The opinion does not present its reasoning as a general rule for other settings such as classrooms, restrooms, or school programs. It does not resolve the underlying science The Court did not find that transgender girls who have taken puberty blockers or hormones have any competitive advantage. It described that question as “the subject of ongoing medical and scientific debate” and “not settled” at this time. Rather than resolve it, the Court said that “[t]he legislatures and the schools are better equipped—and under the Constitution, are the more appropriate entities—to assess the competing medical and scientific considerations and draw appropriate lines.” The ruling rests on the majority’s view that intermediate scrutiny does not demand an individualized fit, not on any factual finding about athletic advantage.
will paste here what I said in a couple of Facebook threads though: This is the end result of an astroturf campaign by religious zealots in order to win elections for Republicans, same as when they put anti-SSM amendments on the ballot in 2004 for the same reason. No doubt this thread is full of ignorance and or hatefulness pretending to care about "fairness" when literally not one of them had ever thought about it before the zealots told them to be mad about it. (they were) But it's clearly NOT about fairness since states are passing bans K-12 (pro-tip: even by right wing "science" there's no argument for competitive disadvantage before puberty) Also, the girl that the case is named for has never had a male type puberty so that claim doesn't work for her and others like her either. It was never about competitive fairness, it was and is a lever to establish a legal precedent that trans people are not entitled to 14th amendment equal protection before the law. So much for the right to "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in Republican America.
Uncle Albert is transgender, and he's so deep in denial that he can't help but post hundreds of times in a thread about it. As far as I'm concerned, every post he makes in this thread is his subconscious desperately trying to get him to acknowledge his transgender identity. Also, no, I don't see his posts, but I do see where he posts in the thread. If he were any more closeted, he'd be in fucking Narnia.
I keep watching the porn vid of the orgy that happens in Omaha to remind myself that UA is too square even by Nebraska standards, and that you can't even blame it on his surroundings.
On the newsstand in Publix today: One of these headlines is not like the other. IE, one is clearly catering to the Uncle Albert crowd. Can ya'll guys which one?
In my recommends today. It ought to shut up the fake science-buffs who only slap on the lab coat for trans issues. But it won't.
The state of Idaho has decided to police what children can and cannot wear based on gender stereotypes. If your child has "male" on their birth certificate and puts on a dress or any other article of clothing deemed "feminine," and a teacher and/or guardian does not report that offense to the authorities, the teachers and/or guardians are hit with an up to $100,000 civil fine. Freedom, everyone. Look upon it. Soak it in. This is the world UA wants desperately, though he might be more inclined that beatings and death occur toward the offenders and their enablers. Be aware the bill has passed and will be signed into law. 2026 - HB 822 - Social Transitioning Ban Source: https://www.acluidaho.org/legislation/2026-822-social-transitioning-ban/
Right-wingers love this Fugitive Slave Act shit of forcing regular people to be cops. They wanna do it with abortion too. Unless it's reporting real actual black eye "I fell " style child abuse. Then they want you to "stay out of people's private business".
Agreed. We've already had ample evidence, too, that the people beating wives and fucking children are these very same conservatives. Their protests are just projection. I mean, for fuck sake, Mike Johnson gets upset that a drag queen might exist and a child might see her, but he advocates telling his own son about his sexual habits. His son was a minor at the time he said as much: https://newrepublic.com/post/176676/mike-johnson-son-monitoring-porn-intake-national-security-threat
Hey folks, can we all at least agree that this is bad, whether you're transgender or not? That directly targeting a group of people for their physical attributes has never worked out well for anyone in the short or long term? That maybe trans people have a case that they're being unfairly maligned by a government that clearly wants to harm them? Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases...rumps-push-to-eliminate-transgender-insanity/
in a semi-normal world, such blatant displays of overt malice would be enough to get any court to strike down all their bullshit. But here we are.
Two reasons: 1) Because of sex-based physical differences that are hugely impacted by the things that go into transitioning, and nearly every athletic governing body that has a policy about transgender athletes already has requirements related to these, and anyone who has actually bothered to learn anything about the topic knows this. 2) Because of social aspects that are irrelevant to this discussion. The main factor is the first one, and again, have you ever bothered to learn the first thing about the policies that athletic governing bodies have adopted, or have you avoided that like the plague because knowledge might interfere with your pre-existing prejudices?
Gonna stop you right there. The question was "...in the first place," not "after modern identity politics are shoehorned in." You don't get to decide what is relevant for all other participants.
