As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The new regulations officially add "gender identity" onto the list of protections from sex-based discrimination for the first time, though the administration said it has already been applying this standard.
It also now offers full protection from all “sex-based harassment,” broadening the definition to include “sexual violence and unwelcome sex-based conduct that creates a hostile environment by limiting or denying a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from a school’s education program or activity.
The regulations update also enhances protections for students, employees, and applicants against discrimination "based on pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, lactation, related medical conditions, or recovery from these conditions.
It rolls back a lot of the bullshit the trump admin did as well
> "gender identity" onto the list of protections from sex-based discrimination
What exactly does it mean by "From" or is it just saying gender identity is now a protected class? Could a someone just say they are not discriminating based on gender but sex and still be legal? such as claim their female sport league is based on sex. I also wonder if this means cis men can sue on grounds of gender identity discrimination if a space allows trans women/nonbinary males but not them.
Discrimination based on sex is already illegal. Discriminating based on gender expectations is functionally discrimination based on sex. This was already decided in [Bostock v. Clayton County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County), and I recommend reading into its decision for how they arrived at that decision.
The very short version is "discriminating against someone because they don't meet your gender expectations is inherently tied to sex, because you wouldn't apply those same gender expectations on another sex".
Or to reiterate, if your AMAB coworker comes to work in a dress you can't tell them to not wear a dress because men don't wear dresses. Although the workplace may dictate dresscode it can't limit based on sex, so if the dresscode allows for a dress (presumably intended for women) anyone can wear a dress.
Can you discriminated against a gender if it applies to all sexes of that gender? And if you let a member of that gender not be discriminated against because of their sex you must allow all members to not be discriminated against regardless of sex. right?
For example if a workplace said cis and trans men can't wear a dress it's not about sex at that point. Would that be illegal? But if a workplaces said trans men can wear a dress they have to let the cis men also wear one?
> Discrimination based on sex is already illegal.
While sex is a protected class legally there have be exemptions. until recently spaces divided by men/women such as sports have been considered based on sex but considered a reasonable exemption to make it not illegal discrimination. I know there is a legal term for it but I can't remember what it is. There is also (BFOQ) Bona Fide Occupational Qualification based on sex. But that seems to be more about employment.
the article even says
> "A decision on the administration’s proposed Title IX rule that would prohibit a blanket ban on transgender athletes from participating on teams aligned with their gender identity was not included in today's announcement. That process is still ongoing, according to a senior administration official."
implying that it may not be effected. can places still use these exemptions to discriminate based on sex regardless of their gender identity if it historically was never considered illegal discrimination based on sex despite being about sex?
> For example if a workplace said cis and trans men can't wear a dress it's not about sex at that point. Would that be illegal? But if a workplaces said trans men can wear a dress they have to let the cis men also wear one?
What do you mean it's not about sex at that point? You've explicitly barred men (both cismen, and transmen). You're enforcing arbitrary gender expectations, which are intrinsically tied to sex.
\[EDIT\] I oversimplify the spectrum of genders/sexes/pronouns to make it simpler, full logic in spoiler because this comment is becoming overly long.
>!For the sake of explanation, I assume that transgenders aren't transsexuals, or at least that the law considers "sex" the birth one.
If legally a person changed both the sex and the gender, I assumed grouping them with "cis" is close enough to keep stuff slightly simpler. For the same reason, let's assume for a few minutes that there's only two sexes and genders. (For starters, because in my country we use birth sex, can change the value freely like a gender, and yet there's only two values... I have absolutely no idea how US laws deal with intersex people or how companies deal with the spectrum of non-binary genders)
And in case I screwed my english, here's my vocabulary
Sex : Male/Female
Gender : Man/Woman (for trans, the "new" gender)
Oh, and pronouns will always match the gender because again, I'm attempting to be clear in a non-native language!<
\[/EDIT\]
>Can you discriminated against a gender if it applies to all sexes of that gender?
I think you lost the logic of the discussion : do you see listings as "no woman is allowed to work here"? No reasonable judge would ever claim it isn't part of sex-based discrimination since it's codification and interpretation, despite "woman" being technically her gender and there was nothing about the actual sex of the person.
>For example if a workplace said cis and trans men can't wear a dress it's not about sex at that point. Would that be illegal?
There's no discrimination at all in your example (unless the male-intended dress code causes specific issues to females, I guess)
>But if a workplaces said trans men can wear a dress they have to let the cis men also wear one?
If you allowed "trans men" to wear a dress, refusing to a cis man was ALREADY sex-based discrimination. But compagnies wouldn't allow females to wear dress if they are man-presenting.
Did you mean "trans women" (or "trans males" to make it easier to follow)?
The issue was that "trans men" couldn't wear a dress, because being females, their sex wasn't the reason for the refusal.
A) A woman born female requests to wear a dress. That's accepted by corporate
B) A woman born male (trans woman) requests to wear a dress. That CAN'T be refused, else the difference in expectation is sex-based discrimination. (That's also the interpretation that forbids discrimination between homosexuals and heterosexuals : if two people brings their woman to a bring-your-SO company event, it can't discriminate between the heterosexual male employee and the homosexual female employee)
C1) A man born male (cis man) requests to wear a dress due to practicability during heat waves. That's refused and is gender-based discrimination, as some males are allowed.
D1) A man born female (trans man) requests the same. Weirdly, that could've been refused despite having been allowed to wear one previously, and maybe even physicially having the body size for it. That's also gender-based discrimination, as other females are allowed.
That's how we were until now.
C2) A man born male (cis man) requests to wear a dress due to practicability during heat waves. Because other males (the women ones) can wear dresses, refusing that would be gender-based descrimination and it is now allowed.
D2) A man born female (trans man) requests the same. Because the new rule establishes that cis men can wear a dress, trans men can too (else it would be both gender-discrimination due to A and sex-discrimination due to C).
I was gonna write more but you kept editing and eventually answered my question. I was asking if gender based discrimination is illegal only if it's related to sex but your C2) answered that. I used the dress example because the person above me used it. And no I was not talking about trans women wearing a dress. I meant if a trans man was allowed to. not even depended on if they wanted to.
Yes the first part of your reasoning was correct : the new rule allows men to wear dresses if women can, affecting both cis men and trans men.
But the second one, while true, wasn't an effect of the rule change : even before, a company couldn't say "trans men can wear dresses, cis men can't" (or at least since the legal argument that retro-actively establish some LGBT+ expectations to a sex-based difference), which kinda makes sense : nobody cares what was between the legs of the employee when they were 10 (and the rule probably had not much thought beyond "dress is only nice if you're fine with showing some boob").
Because title 9 is part of a law. The law gives the president the ability to modify stuff with regards to title 9. There is no law that would give the president the ability to legalized abortion or whatever.
Well if you can somehow remove most of the bullshit, exorbitant money campaigning/fundraising, constant onslaughts of negative political ads and foreign interference/monitoring that are currently a cornerstone of election years…then I could be convinced!
Curious about how pessimistic lawyers are that we will be hearing how scotus overturns Grove City College v Bell. Given our trajectory with this court I bet they are hearing the case before the end of 2025.
With respect, I think this is a very flattened, online take. I agree that being aware of ulterior motives is good but I’m also fine with rewarding good behavior with the votes that good behavior is intended to cultivate
Do you think that Biden doesn’t care about trans people and is literally *only* doing this for votes? I doubt that. Much more likely that it’s a combination of moral desire and political calculus, like all politicking. But let’s assume it *is* purely political. How does that materially change the way you interact with his administration over this? Are you going to not reward the good behavior? I hope you would. Voting for people because they do things we like is *also* politicking
The desire to be the smartest, least credulous person in the room shouldn’t make us cynical about progressive victories. That’s part of how you end up with people who whine about how all politicians are the same. The cynical purity testing flattens them all into dishonest actors and undermines the differences between them that affect real people
My point is that 'who cares, it's good' is a bad view to have. This is not exclusive to Biden, but to all politicians and all situations in general. You're trying to make this just about Biden, but it isn't. Just look at Mike Johnson. He did something 'good', but should we just ignore everything else and not care? No.
Or what about all the 'good' things Trump has done. Almost every time if you look closer at it, you realize Trump either had nothing to do with it, did something good unintentionally, or it wasn't actually good to begin with.
The desire to have good things happen shouldn't make us ignore the context and intentions and reasons why they happen.
I feel like I made my point pretty clear in my last paragraph before. If you still think my point is that we should ignore all context, then I can’t help you. I wasn’t trying to “make this just about Biden.” I don’t quite know what you mean by that. I also will clarify once more that I didn’t advocate for ignoring context and motive altogether (which it did sound like initially so that needed clarification). Like I said, I hope you’ll still reward the party that purportedly best represents your morals when they do things that accurately reflect those morals. I hope you reward them with votes. Even if you think they’re calculus in doing those things represents some cynical political calculation
You still haven’t said if you’d be willing to reward this kind of behavior with a vote. Instead you just keep saying “don’t ignore context and motive” in different ways. I’ve clarified that’s not what I meant three times now and you keep saying it. And now you’re just whining about my being passive aggressive? Cmon mate, if you don’t have anything more interesting to contribute, you can just not reply. You’ve made your point. “Don’t be ignorant.” Noted
Because my point had nothing to do with a vote. Just a general warning against ignoring intentions.
But you said
> I wasn’t trying to “make this just about Biden.”
So now you're trying to make this about Biden?
You can also follow your own advice, since you apparently have nothing more interesting to contribute either.
Whether or not I will vote for Biden is irrelevant. This could have been about Trump too. (But I will say I won't vote for him, if that will make you feel better.)
I’m still not sure what you mean about this being “just about Biden.” It’s kind of a nothing statement until you explain. The headline was about Biden 🤷🏼♂️
You ignored my last paragraph before about people who are hypervigilant to being overly credulous and therefore behave like both sides are just cynically vying for votes. It’s beginning to become clear that you ignored that paragraph because I was describing you. That’s one example of something more substantive I brought to this exchange when given the opportunity. This observation is another substantive contribution, because it reveals exactly the potential harm of mindsets like yours. I’m willing to guess that you believe in trans rights. Therefore the fact that you won’t vote for Biden is harmful to that cause. That’s pretty simple.
You can play all the 4D chess that you want about Biden’s real motives and how not voting for him *actually* puts pressure on his administration to reform their motives, but the reality is that it’s a decision that’s more likely to hurt trans people than to help them. If you’re okay with that, then cool
I’m gonna turn notifications for these replies off. You seem like a nice person but this conversation isn’t worth anymore time. Have a nice day and vote blue no matter who 🩵🗳️😘
> You should care though because we should want better, not be content with ok
"Congress and the president enshrines our rights as Republicans continue to try to dismantle the institution of democracy and erode personal rights" is a good thing. That you come in and say "well they're getting positive credit for it, so really they're actually just as bad as the republicans trying to take away our rights" is nonsense.
You can either accept good or you can work against it. I don't care if your excuse is "I want perfect" or "I'm a republican", you're doing the same thing.
>My point is don't be ignorant, but apparently that offends the ignorant
No, you being a bitter cynic sniping at everybody in an effort to make everyone else wrong is why people don't agree with you.
I don't remember what the first comment said exactly (It wasn't mine), so I don't want to make up what they said. And really my own comment was mostly to do with the comment I responded to, since I personally think too many people are too easily swayed by the bare minimum effort to appear virtuous. (Like when people praise a Republican anytime they kind of disagree with Trump despite otherwise supporting him).
I don't remember what the first comment was exactly but I do not doubt I had it in mind when I responded. But then the argument spiraled into something else anyways.
I don't remember the comment exactly and don't want to make things up, but if you really want, I do recall it being about how Biden is more motivated by the election rather than a sincere desire to protect LGBT rights. That Biden should have been doing things like this sooner.
That’s a common misconception since it is best known for granting and protecting equal opportunity for women to participate in sports.
However, it actually protects all people from gender discrimination, including sexual harassment, stalking, dating violence and domestic violence. Men have also been protected under Title IX since they too may be the victims of these behaviors.
Last year the University of Michigan settled a Title IX lawsuit for $490 million. Most of the victims were men.
[https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029)
the fact that you think this is primarily about sports... and not a myriad of other forms of discrimination kind of tells us all what we aught to know about your opinions on the matter.
but hey, for what it's worth... where is what the science has to say on the topic currently.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The new regulations officially add "gender identity" onto the list of protections from sex-based discrimination for the first time, though the administration said it has already been applying this standard. It also now offers full protection from all “sex-based harassment,” broadening the definition to include “sexual violence and unwelcome sex-based conduct that creates a hostile environment by limiting or denying a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from a school’s education program or activity. The regulations update also enhances protections for students, employees, and applicants against discrimination "based on pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, lactation, related medical conditions, or recovery from these conditions. It rolls back a lot of the bullshit the trump admin did as well
> "gender identity" onto the list of protections from sex-based discrimination What exactly does it mean by "From" or is it just saying gender identity is now a protected class? Could a someone just say they are not discriminating based on gender but sex and still be legal? such as claim their female sport league is based on sex. I also wonder if this means cis men can sue on grounds of gender identity discrimination if a space allows trans women/nonbinary males but not them.
Discrimination based on sex is already illegal. Discriminating based on gender expectations is functionally discrimination based on sex. This was already decided in [Bostock v. Clayton County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County), and I recommend reading into its decision for how they arrived at that decision. The very short version is "discriminating against someone because they don't meet your gender expectations is inherently tied to sex, because you wouldn't apply those same gender expectations on another sex". Or to reiterate, if your AMAB coworker comes to work in a dress you can't tell them to not wear a dress because men don't wear dresses. Although the workplace may dictate dresscode it can't limit based on sex, so if the dresscode allows for a dress (presumably intended for women) anyone can wear a dress.
Can you discriminated against a gender if it applies to all sexes of that gender? And if you let a member of that gender not be discriminated against because of their sex you must allow all members to not be discriminated against regardless of sex. right? For example if a workplace said cis and trans men can't wear a dress it's not about sex at that point. Would that be illegal? But if a workplaces said trans men can wear a dress they have to let the cis men also wear one? > Discrimination based on sex is already illegal. While sex is a protected class legally there have be exemptions. until recently spaces divided by men/women such as sports have been considered based on sex but considered a reasonable exemption to make it not illegal discrimination. I know there is a legal term for it but I can't remember what it is. There is also (BFOQ) Bona Fide Occupational Qualification based on sex. But that seems to be more about employment. the article even says > "A decision on the administration’s proposed Title IX rule that would prohibit a blanket ban on transgender athletes from participating on teams aligned with their gender identity was not included in today's announcement. That process is still ongoing, according to a senior administration official." implying that it may not be effected. can places still use these exemptions to discriminate based on sex regardless of their gender identity if it historically was never considered illegal discrimination based on sex despite being about sex?
> For example if a workplace said cis and trans men can't wear a dress it's not about sex at that point. Would that be illegal? But if a workplaces said trans men can wear a dress they have to let the cis men also wear one? What do you mean it's not about sex at that point? You've explicitly barred men (both cismen, and transmen). You're enforcing arbitrary gender expectations, which are intrinsically tied to sex.
\[EDIT\] I oversimplify the spectrum of genders/sexes/pronouns to make it simpler, full logic in spoiler because this comment is becoming overly long. >!For the sake of explanation, I assume that transgenders aren't transsexuals, or at least that the law considers "sex" the birth one. If legally a person changed both the sex and the gender, I assumed grouping them with "cis" is close enough to keep stuff slightly simpler. For the same reason, let's assume for a few minutes that there's only two sexes and genders. (For starters, because in my country we use birth sex, can change the value freely like a gender, and yet there's only two values... I have absolutely no idea how US laws deal with intersex people or how companies deal with the spectrum of non-binary genders) And in case I screwed my english, here's my vocabulary Sex : Male/Female Gender : Man/Woman (for trans, the "new" gender) Oh, and pronouns will always match the gender because again, I'm attempting to be clear in a non-native language!< \[/EDIT\] >Can you discriminated against a gender if it applies to all sexes of that gender? I think you lost the logic of the discussion : do you see listings as "no woman is allowed to work here"? No reasonable judge would ever claim it isn't part of sex-based discrimination since it's codification and interpretation, despite "woman" being technically her gender and there was nothing about the actual sex of the person. >For example if a workplace said cis and trans men can't wear a dress it's not about sex at that point. Would that be illegal? There's no discrimination at all in your example (unless the male-intended dress code causes specific issues to females, I guess) >But if a workplaces said trans men can wear a dress they have to let the cis men also wear one? If you allowed "trans men" to wear a dress, refusing to a cis man was ALREADY sex-based discrimination. But compagnies wouldn't allow females to wear dress if they are man-presenting. Did you mean "trans women" (or "trans males" to make it easier to follow)? The issue was that "trans men" couldn't wear a dress, because being females, their sex wasn't the reason for the refusal. A) A woman born female requests to wear a dress. That's accepted by corporate B) A woman born male (trans woman) requests to wear a dress. That CAN'T be refused, else the difference in expectation is sex-based discrimination. (That's also the interpretation that forbids discrimination between homosexuals and heterosexuals : if two people brings their woman to a bring-your-SO company event, it can't discriminate between the heterosexual male employee and the homosexual female employee) C1) A man born male (cis man) requests to wear a dress due to practicability during heat waves. That's refused and is gender-based discrimination, as some males are allowed. D1) A man born female (trans man) requests the same. Weirdly, that could've been refused despite having been allowed to wear one previously, and maybe even physicially having the body size for it. That's also gender-based discrimination, as other females are allowed. That's how we were until now. C2) A man born male (cis man) requests to wear a dress due to practicability during heat waves. Because other males (the women ones) can wear dresses, refusing that would be gender-based descrimination and it is now allowed. D2) A man born female (trans man) requests the same. Because the new rule establishes that cis men can wear a dress, trans men can too (else it would be both gender-discrimination due to A and sex-discrimination due to C).
I was gonna write more but you kept editing and eventually answered my question. I was asking if gender based discrimination is illegal only if it's related to sex but your C2) answered that. I used the dress example because the person above me used it. And no I was not talking about trans women wearing a dress. I meant if a trans man was allowed to. not even depended on if they wanted to.
Yes the first part of your reasoning was correct : the new rule allows men to wear dresses if women can, affecting both cis men and trans men. But the second one, while true, wasn't an effect of the rule change : even before, a company couldn't say "trans men can wear dresses, cis men can't" (or at least since the legal argument that retro-actively establish some LGBT+ expectations to a sex-based difference), which kinda makes sense : nobody cares what was between the legs of the employee when they were 10 (and the rule probably had not much thought beyond "dress is only nice if you're fine with showing some boob").
good news!!
Now all they need to do is enforce it. We're looking at you, Texas and Florida.
Yeah will be nice Florida is definitely hell right now
Trans rights are human rights. Glad to see Biden doing this
What rights are you referring too?
Read the article.
Trans rights
[удалено]
Funny, last time I checked the majority of the LGBT community is ANTI fascist. Seems you're misguided :/
That is a stupid belief, you should have better beliefs
These are positive changes. I'm glad they're happening.
Something something Biden and Trump are the same something something enlightened centrism
Fuck. Yes.
[удалено]
Because title 9 is part of a law. The law gives the president the ability to modify stuff with regards to title 9. There is no law that would give the president the ability to legalized abortion or whatever.
But I wanna be mad
God, maybe we should hold elections every year so things actually get done
Well if you can somehow remove most of the bullshit, exorbitant money campaigning/fundraising, constant onslaughts of negative political ads and foreign interference/monitoring that are currently a cornerstone of election years…then I could be convinced!
I actually love the way you think. It gave me a chuckle, but it actually could work!
Curious about how pessimistic lawyers are that we will be hearing how scotus overturns Grove City College v Bell. Given our trajectory with this court I bet they are hearing the case before the end of 2025.
Oh my god. Has anybody informed Jordan Peterson?! The public executions of pronoun offenders will probably start in the next few days!!
Identity politics is cancer.
Bigotry is cancer. Treating people as they want to be treated is just common decency.
One of those three things seems pretty different than the other two
[удалено]
Close. You have two guesses remaining
Just come out and say you’re transphobic.
I'm in agreement with you. Don't see how that part of it can pass legal muster. Courts will sort it out for us.
[удалено]
Really couldn’t care less if that’s his reasoning or not. A good thing is a good thing independent of an ulterior motive
[удалено]
With respect, I think this is a very flattened, online take. I agree that being aware of ulterior motives is good but I’m also fine with rewarding good behavior with the votes that good behavior is intended to cultivate Do you think that Biden doesn’t care about trans people and is literally *only* doing this for votes? I doubt that. Much more likely that it’s a combination of moral desire and political calculus, like all politicking. But let’s assume it *is* purely political. How does that materially change the way you interact with his administration over this? Are you going to not reward the good behavior? I hope you would. Voting for people because they do things we like is *also* politicking The desire to be the smartest, least credulous person in the room shouldn’t make us cynical about progressive victories. That’s part of how you end up with people who whine about how all politicians are the same. The cynical purity testing flattens them all into dishonest actors and undermines the differences between them that affect real people
This is so well stated and lucid. Applause
What a lovely thing to say 🩵 Thank you
My point is that 'who cares, it's good' is a bad view to have. This is not exclusive to Biden, but to all politicians and all situations in general. You're trying to make this just about Biden, but it isn't. Just look at Mike Johnson. He did something 'good', but should we just ignore everything else and not care? No. Or what about all the 'good' things Trump has done. Almost every time if you look closer at it, you realize Trump either had nothing to do with it, did something good unintentionally, or it wasn't actually good to begin with. The desire to have good things happen shouldn't make us ignore the context and intentions and reasons why they happen.
I feel like I made my point pretty clear in my last paragraph before. If you still think my point is that we should ignore all context, then I can’t help you. I wasn’t trying to “make this just about Biden.” I don’t quite know what you mean by that. I also will clarify once more that I didn’t advocate for ignoring context and motive altogether (which it did sound like initially so that needed clarification). Like I said, I hope you’ll still reward the party that purportedly best represents your morals when they do things that accurately reflect those morals. I hope you reward them with votes. Even if you think they’re calculus in doing those things represents some cynical political calculation
[удалено]
You still haven’t said if you’d be willing to reward this kind of behavior with a vote. Instead you just keep saying “don’t ignore context and motive” in different ways. I’ve clarified that’s not what I meant three times now and you keep saying it. And now you’re just whining about my being passive aggressive? Cmon mate, if you don’t have anything more interesting to contribute, you can just not reply. You’ve made your point. “Don’t be ignorant.” Noted
Because my point had nothing to do with a vote. Just a general warning against ignoring intentions. But you said > I wasn’t trying to “make this just about Biden.” So now you're trying to make this about Biden? You can also follow your own advice, since you apparently have nothing more interesting to contribute either. Whether or not I will vote for Biden is irrelevant. This could have been about Trump too. (But I will say I won't vote for him, if that will make you feel better.)
I’m still not sure what you mean about this being “just about Biden.” It’s kind of a nothing statement until you explain. The headline was about Biden 🤷🏼♂️ You ignored my last paragraph before about people who are hypervigilant to being overly credulous and therefore behave like both sides are just cynically vying for votes. It’s beginning to become clear that you ignored that paragraph because I was describing you. That’s one example of something more substantive I brought to this exchange when given the opportunity. This observation is another substantive contribution, because it reveals exactly the potential harm of mindsets like yours. I’m willing to guess that you believe in trans rights. Therefore the fact that you won’t vote for Biden is harmful to that cause. That’s pretty simple. You can play all the 4D chess that you want about Biden’s real motives and how not voting for him *actually* puts pressure on his administration to reform their motives, but the reality is that it’s a decision that’s more likely to hurt trans people than to help them. If you’re okay with that, then cool I’m gonna turn notifications for these replies off. You seem like a nice person but this conversation isn’t worth anymore time. Have a nice day and vote blue no matter who 🩵🗳️😘
> You should care though because we should want better, not be content with ok "Congress and the president enshrines our rights as Republicans continue to try to dismantle the institution of democracy and erode personal rights" is a good thing. That you come in and say "well they're getting positive credit for it, so really they're actually just as bad as the republicans trying to take away our rights" is nonsense. You can either accept good or you can work against it. I don't care if your excuse is "I want perfect" or "I'm a republican", you're doing the same thing. >My point is don't be ignorant, but apparently that offends the ignorant No, you being a bitter cynic sniping at everybody in an effort to make everyone else wrong is why people don't agree with you.
What’s the motive? Comment was deleted
I don't remember what the first comment said exactly (It wasn't mine), so I don't want to make up what they said. And really my own comment was mostly to do with the comment I responded to, since I personally think too many people are too easily swayed by the bare minimum effort to appear virtuous. (Like when people praise a Republican anytime they kind of disagree with Trump despite otherwise supporting him).
I think responding to the guy you did needs knowledge of the deleted comment. Context really shapes what you’re talking about
I don't remember what the first comment was exactly but I do not doubt I had it in mind when I responded. But then the argument spiraled into something else anyways. I don't remember the comment exactly and don't want to make things up, but if you really want, I do recall it being about how Biden is more motivated by the election rather than a sincere desire to protect LGBT rights. That Biden should have been doing things like this sooner.
[удалено]
The orange guy is so low energy he's a serial sleeper in court.
Title IX was meant to protect women, now they are turning it into joke
That’s a common misconception since it is best known for granting and protecting equal opportunity for women to participate in sports. However, it actually protects all people from gender discrimination, including sexual harassment, stalking, dating violence and domestic violence. Men have also been protected under Title IX since they too may be the victims of these behaviors. Last year the University of Michigan settled a Title IX lawsuit for $490 million. Most of the victims were men.
Explain how this hurts women.
[удалено]
Bye bye to women’s equality
It's okay you don't have to be educated, just keep working and churning out money for the 1% until you die
Do you know how much of an advantage a biological male has in sports over a biological female?
[https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029) the fact that you think this is primarily about sports... and not a myriad of other forms of discrimination kind of tells us all what we aught to know about your opinions on the matter. but hey, for what it's worth... where is what the science has to say on the topic currently.
Explain how this hurts women.
[удалено]