What to call this thread?

[sear]

For dozens of U.S. presidencies, literally for centuries, those that served as U.S. president were White men.
Little wonder. For much of that time women couldn't vote. And White men therefore comprised a plurality if not a majority of the electorate. BUT !

Then Barrack Hussein Obama was elected, and the White ceiling was shattered.
Note, White men still comprised a substantial segment of the U.S. electorate.
But they voted for a minority among them.

"That's like asking "how do white people feel about black people in their schools?"" S2 #1,539

Ironic?
S2 #1,539 seems prejudicial, an "interesting" position for one that ostensibly opposes prejudice.

a) I neither asserted nor implied that the answer to the inquiry in #1,538 is binding. It was an objective inquiry.
b) Implication in S2 #1,539 is the other competitors would oppose it / them. Maybe so. And if so, at least then we'd know. BUT !
c) Is it a zero possibility they might be a source of constructive assistance?

I won't prejudice this issue.
Seems to me it's worth knowing what the position is of the population affected.
With the information available, I can't rule out the possibility they could be enormously constructive allies in this effort.

- or -

Is there something you already know, that you're not disclosing?

 

[Shiftless2]

You asked how cis people feel about trans people competing.

I don't see how that's fundamentally different than asking how white people feel about black people in their schools. After all, we know what happened when Ruby Bridges enrolled in a white school.

 

[Shiftless2]

And now we have the Charlie Kirk Act

NEWS: Tennessee Republicans about to sign “Charlie Kirk Act” which would dramatically limit free speech in that state. | Josh Greene | Facebook

NEWS: Tennessee Republicans about to sign “Charlie Kirk Act” which would dramatically limit free speech in that state.

www.facebook.com

 

[Shiftless2]

Please - don't laugh too hard



British commentator Millicent Sedra has declared that drag queens must be banned from schools entirely, arguing drag performances and story hours have no place in children's education. The statement landed hard and the debate has not calmed down.Drag queens are adult performers — often queer men or non-binary people using theatrical gender expression as an art form. In recent years, some have participated in school and library reading events designed to promote literacy, creativity, and exposure to diverse ways of being. Supporters point to their educational framing — books, stories, imagination — and argue they expose children to the reality that the world contains many different kinds of people. Critics like Sedra argue the specific aesthetic of drag is adult content that parents haven't consented to in educational settings.The comment section reveals how deeply this splits people. Some ask why drag was ever permitted near schools at all. Others argue that banning an entire category of people from educational spaces based on their expression is censorship — and sends a message to LGBTQ+ children already in those classrooms that queer expression is inherently dangerous or shameful.The core tension is not really about costumes. It is about who schools treat as safe, visible, and welcome around children — and whether queer and gender-nonconforming adults belong in that category or represent a category to be excluded entirely.That question has an answer that looks very different depending on which values you place at the center of it.Should schools reflect one kind of adult — or the full diversity of the world children are already growing up in?

SOURCE

 

[Shiftless2]

BREAKING

Trump subpoenaed 20 hospitals for Transgender kids' medical records — now California is fighting back with a bill that would FINE any doctor who complies.

Last year, the Trump administration's Justice Department sent federal subpoenas to 20 medical providers across the country, demanding the medical records of transgender youth patients.

They called it an investigation into "health care fraud." Doctors, hospitals, families, and advocates called it what it really was: a federal dragnet designed to expose and target trans children and their families.

Children's Hospital Los Angeles was one of those 20. The subpoenas sent shockwaves through gender-affirming care providers nationwide. Some hospitals closed their trans youth programs entirely.

Some families fled the state. In January, the feds backed off and did not receive the records — after families sued. But the threat hasn't gone away.

Now California is drawing a legal wall around its trans patients.

A bill working through the California legislature — authored by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur of Los Angeles — would make it illegal for any California medical provider to comply with a federal subpoena for trans or abortion care records without first notifying the state attorney general, the patients, and the providers involved. If they hand over those records without going through that process, they face civil fines of up to $15,000 per violation.

The bill also gives the attorney general 30 days to review any such legal demand before a provider could comply. It builds on California's existing "Transgender State of Refuge" law and goes directly at the federal subpoena power the Trump DOJ has been weaponizing.

The law is co-sponsored by .....

CONTINUED with comments

 

[Rigby5]

I do not see how drag queens could be harmful?
Their diversity not only is beneficial in questioning roles, but they also seem to be better communicators and at getting people to think more about human social interactions.

Nor do I see how feds can legally subpoena medical records?
The constitution limits federal jurisdiction to only a few areas, like immigration and defense.

 

[Shiftless2]

Yep



And then there's a British tradition called Pantomime (also called Panto) - fun for the whole family from toddlers to grandparents and everyone in between.

 

[sear]

"Should drag queens be banned from schools?" #1,544

I don't think decorum should be abandoned in U.S. government schools.
If Susie wants to wear trousers I don't have a problem with it.

But if the drag queen's costume is so disruptive it interferes with the primary mission of the educational institution, I think reasonable dress code should be enforced.

"You've been entertained by drag your whole life. Don't pretend it's a problem now." #1,547

This argument degrades the debate. It conflates high budget theatrical entertainment with the very serious business of educating our citizens.
Entertainment is fine, in entertainment setting.
And while many "public" (government) schools have auditoria, our sensible traditions have kept non-auditorium theatrics to reasonable (non-disruptive) standards.

 

[Shiftless2]

A widely shared claim states that a large majority of Americans—reportedly around 85%—support equal rights and protections for transgender people. The figure reflects growing public awareness and shifting attitudes toward LGBTQ+ issues in recent years, particularly around workplace protections, healthcare access, and anti-discrimination laws. #PublicOpinion #TransRights #Equality #LGBTQ

While exact percentages can vary depending on how questions are asked and which polls are referenced, many surveys do show majority support for basic legal protections for trans individuals. Public opinion tends to be strongest around fairness in employment, housing, and protection from discrimination, even as debates continue in more specific policy areas. #PollingData #CivilRights #AntiDiscrimination #SocialTrends

Overall, the statement highlights a broader trend: increasing visibility and acceptance of transgender people in American society, alongside ongoing conversations about how equality is defined and implemented in law and everyday life.

 

[Shiftless2]

After the Supreme Court's ruling in Chiles v. Salazar weakened direct bans on conversion therapy, California is pursuing a different legal strategy. Senator Scott Wiener's SB 934 would dramatically extend the statute of limitations for medical malpractice lawsuits against therapists who attempt to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity and cause harm — allowing survivors to sue up to 22 years after the therapy, or within five years of recognizing the damage.

The logic is specific and carefully constructed. If courts are going to treat conversion therapy as protected speech rather than regulated professional conduct, the state can still hold practitioners accountable through the professional standards framework that governs all licensed healthcare providers. Every major medical organization has already established that attempts to change sexual orientation or gender identity are ineffective and harmful. Providing a treatment that major medical bodies have classified as harmful and without legitimate therapeutic basis is, by definition, a departure from accepted professional standards — which is the foundation of a malpractice claim.

The extended statute of limitations reflects a documented reality: many survivors only recognize years later that it was the therapy — not something wrong with them — that failed. Aligning these cases with how law treats child sexual abuse claims acknowledges that timeline.

Christian advocacy groups have called this an attempt to ""bankrupt counselors."" Legal experts counter that what's being challenged is the claim that ideologically motivated harm constitutes legitimate clinical practice.

Can't ban it as speech. So California is calling it what the medical community already says it is — malpractice."

SOURCE

 

[sear]

"85% of Americans believe trans people should have equal rights and protections" #1,549

Perhaps.
And if so I'm probably w/ that 85%, BUT !
That does not necessarily mean I've accepted any particular resolution of the public toilet / sports team participation disputes. BUT !

85%?!
I'd want to read the exact wording supported in the poll question.

"California can't ban conversion therapy as speech so it's calling it what doctors say it is malpractice" RC #1,550

What's the end result?

 

[Rigby5]

Perhaps.
And if so I'm probably w/ that 85%, BUT !
That does not necessarily mean I've accepted any particular resolution of the public toilet / sports team participation disputes. BUT !

85%?!
I'd want to read the exact wording supported in the poll question.


What's the end result?

Oddly enough I normally think of law as needing to be objective and apply equally in all cases, but with public toilets and sports, I find myself preferring a subjective stance that depends on how they appear?
So I am confused.

 

[sear]

"So I am confused." R5 #1,552

As are the advocates of this polarized debate.

Over months / years S2 has patiently persuaded me there isn't a single criterion for making this distinction.

Problem is, this 78 page thread focuses more on - oh ain't it awful -
and less on: - and here are the criteria that should be objectively applied to resolve the controversy.

"So I am confused." R5 #1,552

Perhaps you've succumbed to an increasingly rare condition called "mental health".
Lucky for you, this condition may be incurable.

 

[Shiftless2]

I know I've posted this before but it's as relevant as ever

 

[Shiftless2]

A coalition of 21 states and the District of Columbia won a federal court ruling blocking the Trump Administration’s attempt to pressure hospitals and clinics into ending gender-affirming care for young people with gender dysphoria.

A federal judge in Oregon ruled that HHS could not use Medicare and Medicaid threats to bully providers into cutting off this care.

Let’s be clear ...

This was never about “guidance.” It was about fear. It was about intimidation. It was about using the power of the federal government to scare hospitals, clinics, and doctors into abandoning transgender youth and their families. The declaration at the center of this case claimed gender-affirming care did not meet professional standards and suggested providers could be excluded from federal health programs. The court said the administration did not have that authority.

Unfortunately the pressure worked.

Many providers pulled back or stopped care out of fear of losing massive federal funding.

One confirmed example: Children’s Minnesota paused parts of its Gender Health program in late February, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors. After the March court ruling, the hospital announced it was resuming all services and contacting affected families.

But not every hospital has resumed.

Baystate Health in Massachusetts stopped gender-affirming treatment for minors in February and, as of early April, had not restarted it. Children’s Hospital Colorado also said it still had not resumed medical gender-affirming care for patients under 18, arguing that the broader legal landscape remained too uncertain.

This ruling is important.

It is a real victory. But damage has already been done.

Hospitals and doctors should never have been put in this position in the first place.

Families seeking care for their children should not have to wonder whether politics will override medicine. Doctors should not have to choose between doing what is medically appropriate and protecting their institution from retaliation.And transgender youth should not have to live at the mercy of political cruelty.

Medical decisions belong with patients, families, and qualified providers — not politicians, not ideologues, and not an administration trying to govern through fear.

This ruling blocked the unlawful attempt to force care to disappear. But the damage caused by the threats is real. Some families have already had care disrupted. Some hospitals are still hesitating. And that means the fight is not over.

Trans kids deserve care. Their families deserve stability. And every provider willing to stand up for them deserves protection.

SOURCE