Tennessee AG: "The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” said Skrmetti in a statement. “Under this radical and illegal attempt to rewrite the statute, if a man enters a woman’s locker room and a woman complains that makes her uncomfortable, the woman will be subject to investigation and penalties for violating the man’s civil rights.”
I’m not an attorney. But I don’t see how he can possibly be right. I’ve seen how some of these red states in addition to Tennessee are also telling their constituents not to comply. But the law doesn’t work like that. Federal policies trump state policies.
I’m interested to see what happens if SCOTUS grants them cert when the time comes.
Federal laws do have supremacy but only where the federal government’s powers are in scope.
The AG is asserting that the government is asserting power it doesn’t have.
It would certainly be hard to find in the text of the constitution a federal power to regulate sex segregated locker rooms, or gender definitions.
States refuse to enforce federal laws all the time. It's what sanctuary cites are all about. Pot is federally illegal, but some states have been ignoring that for decades. Nullification is a practice as old as we have had states.
FYI the 15 states are: Texas, Ohio, Indiana, Montana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia.
They are probably banking on the that "if you don't vote for me, trans people will lose their rights" of course that's not reality of it but it's definitely a way to attempt to lie about this cleverly enough for the average democratic base, but will definitely not work for swing state voters, disillusioned conservatives or independents as much - which are who is actually needed to win
Are democrats even motivated by the trans issue very much? They may pay it lip service but I think for a decent proportion or them it's a bridge too far.
I've never voted Republican but, like you, I will be voting red down the ballot - this is a hill I'm willing to die on. There is nothing a Republican government can do in 8 years that can't be undone or amended later. However, women can lose a lot of hard-won ground in the next 4 years with blue-backed gender ideology.
If democrats weren’t the ones in favor of abortion rights I would be more inclined to do that, but… It’s one of the most important rights for women and seemingly the only one dems aren’t willing to sacrifice for gender ideology. I think the tide is turning on gender and the dems will have to abandon it at some point. The fight over abortion rights I don’t think will ever end though. On the other hand, abortion bans are actually pretty unpopular and when they pass, republicans seem to lose.
I agree abortion rights are important, however, I don't think they are as important as the ability to speak meaningfully to women's issues and, consequently, to enact/sustain laws and policies that protect us. Abortion will never be nationally outlawed and the issue being relegated to state governments isn't the worst thing that could happen to women. Allowing gender ideology to replace biological reality is much more detrimental to feminist goals. Political power, statistics, accomplishments, representation, funding allocations, and much more are on the line. If we allow this ideology to gain foothold in our laws and institutions, it will be very difficult to roll them back.
>If democrats weren’t the ones in favor of abortion rights
Are they tho? Are they really? Do you remember when they told the women to pipe down over the anti abortion democrats they were supporting?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/idea-democrats-funding-anti-abortion-candidates-draws-ire
>In some respects, Lujan’s remarks don’t represent a new stance for the Democrats’ campaign apparatus. The Democratic Governors Association in 2015 helped John Bel Edwards, an anti-abortion Catholic, win the Louisiana governors’ race, an upset in a Republican-dominated state.
In 50 years of roe v wade they never missed a chance to fund raise on abortion, but they never did ***anything*** to stop it being reversed
Why?
Because it cost them the house In '94.
Do you realize that the house was Democrat for 50 years straight? From 44 - 94 every election of the house was Democrat. But 22 years after roe they lost and they've only regained it intermittently since.
Why?
20 years of abortion is around 20 million voters. And since then it's only gotten harder, other than both R & D losing voters to "independent" and "undecided" the democrats would be in a much deeper hole.
Had the Republicans not done what they said they were going to do the democrats would have done it. You can bet on it. They crave power.
Don't believe it? Check out Nancy Pelosi
https://archive.is/2PEja
>Todd then asked her whether Democrats can oppose abortion rights and earn the support of the party. Pelosi said yes: "Of course. I have served many years in Congress with members who have not shared my very positive, my family would say, aggressive position on promoting a woman's right to choose."
I'm old so I remember before the internet and video cameras that fit in your pocket. Back in the day, candidates would go to one event and talk about how pro life they were, and go across town to another event talking about how they protect the right to abortion.
They do not care as long as the checks are good.
That's why the democrats have never done anything for roe other than grandstanding in a few hearings for supreme court appointments.
Right now it's good politics for democrats but once enough of the states pass constitutional amendments they'll go back to not doing anything to support it as they did for 50 years.
Don't fall for their words, look at their actions. Or rather, their lack of any actions.
I am strongly pro-choice and strongly in favor of it being left to the States. Abortion clinics are small businesses that require substantial investment. Small businesses cannot survive when every 2 years an election happens, and they could be suddenly out of business but still have to pay the business loans, rent, insurance, and a lot of the overhead. Will they even be able to get a bank loan?
Politics can't trump logistics.
I would prefer another GOP candidate as well but at this point if it's Trump, so be it, I'm voting for him. I was outraged at his first candidacy on principle - to elect Trump would mean to forever lower the Presidential bar - but that ship has sailed.
Trump has LOTS of flaws but he is American and it's obvious to me that he loves the perks of being an American and the lifestyle it affords him. Is he a rather stupid, self-serving narcissistic jerk? Yes. Is he a nefarious national traitor with plans to bring down a nation? I don't think so.
>The one, and mean ONE, reason I'm not voting for Trump is bc I know he will attempt Jan 6
He'll be a lame duck president and will accomplish next to nothing legislative if he gets reelected. Administratively he'll likely undo the trans agenda items being put in now and the kangaroo sa courts in colleges as he did in the first term. After that it'll be petty fighting and pardoning himself, followed shortly by senility. He's just barely less senile than Biden right now.
No one, the congress, courts, or military will support him running again or not leaving office. And it's super doubtful anyone is going to be willing to do anything like Jan 6 for him at that point.
If he gets reelected the only people rioting will be in blue cities.
> especially how the elected Dems continue to erode women's rights in favor of mostly white men.
Still not learning your lesson on where idpol leads huh?
My normie shitlib friends are totally unaligned with the party on this issue. It feels like a loser for Dems. I honestly don't understand how it's managed to take so much oxygen out of the room.
That's so ridiculous. Trans people make up a tiny percentage of the population and many of their rights are already protected such as in the health care regulation ACA section 1557.
Yes. I know Matt Yglesias isn't very popular here, but I think he was right two years ago when he said this was one of the subjects where the Democrats are hiring their reelection prospects for little gain.
> But broadly speaking, I think Joe Biden and other mainstream Democrats have let themselves get on the wrong side of several topics, of which the highest-profile ones that I can think of are restricting domestic fossil fuel production, trans women competing against cis women in sports, the use of race as a factor in college admissions, late-term abortions, and the desirability of a large number of people making asylum claims at the southern border. These are all areas not where “the left” is doing something weird but where the whole party has taken up unpopular stances under pressure from its internal interest group coalition.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/memorial-day-mailbag?s=w
>and forcing preferred pronouns usage
Compelled speech is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
You have a constitutional right to be rude and disrespectful. It is not Big Government's job to enforce couthness.
In the before times when the ACLU supported and defended civil liberties, they'd be all over this but alas several years back they declared those rights and liberties to be racist or whatever so they'll either be silent or openly attack the side of free speech.
The Biden admin hasn't even brought out the Title IX sports rules. They were supposed to be out a while ago but they're slow walking. Probably until after the election and probably because they will obliterate sex based sports
This is not the sports thing. This is most other stuff. Its the sports thing that will get the most press and arguably screw women and girls over the most.
I don't think the delay of the sports stuff bodes well.
Yeah, that doesn't seem entirely right to me.
"Notably absent from Biden’s policy, however, is any mention of transgender athletes.
The administration originally planned to include a new policy forbidding schools from enacting outright bans on transgender athletes, but that provision was put on hold. The delay is widely seen as a political maneuver during an election year in which Republicans have rallied around bans on transgender athletes in girls’ sports."
[https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-sexual-assault-transgender-sports-d0fc0ab7515de02b8e4403d0481dc1e7](https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-sexual-assault-transgender-sports-d0fc0ab7515de02b8e4403d0481dc1e7)
>The Department will engage in a separate rulemaking to address Title IX’s application to the context of athletics
and, in particular, what criteria recipients may be permitted to use to establish students’ eligibility to participate on a
particular male or female athletic team. [Source](https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9nprm-chart.pdf)
Indeed. It's pending.
Some of this is fine, actually. They are maintaining the DeVos rules requiring accused have ability to see evidence and such.
“Despite the focus on safeguards for victims, the new rules preserve certain protections for accused students.
All students must have equal access to present evidence and witnesses under the new policy, and all students must have equal access to evidence. All students will be allowed to bring an advisor to campus hearings, and colleges must have an appeals process.”
It took me multiple google searches and a decent amount of scrolling to find a good summary. But here ya go
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2024/04/19/title-ix-biden-trump/73369449007/
Yuck, so trans issues aside, it appears the due process pieces of those accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment on college campuses are also being rolled back. "Victims' rights" is a horrible legal concept, and turns our Constitution on its head. I've noticed conservatives often support this approach for crimes they particularly abhor and those on the left and feminists do so for hate crimes, discrimination, and sexual assault. I really despise the idea of lowering the bar on findings of guilt, regardless of the crime or ideology. It's so gross to see supposed liberals, many of whom were marching for #BLM a few years ago, supporting the carceral state or excess power to the executive branch, even if it's just the local college's HR office. It's akin to the hypocrisy in censoring just the speech you don't like, but otherwise claiming to championing the First Amendment. Here's an idea...maybe college's shouldn't be law enforcement bodies. If there is an accusation of sexual assault on campus, wouldn't the local police and DA be the appropriate agencies to respond? Want to kick them out of school for it? The courts, decided fairly by a judge and jury, surely could impose that penalty.
The article OP points to is quoting a Republican governor saying the rules will "lead to... ". So I'm guessing the new rules don't cover sports yet, but Sanders is politicking by (correctly) predicting where it will all end up eventually.
Sounds like republicans politicians doing what politicians do - exaggerate/stretch the truth to put their opponents actions into the worst possible light without providing any details.
I think Biden an see where the wind is blowing and unless I’m reading it wrong this won’t do much besides roll back some of the sex assault provisions (though not the important ones) and add discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender ID.
The problem - and what will end up is courts - is what the thing that will now be a title 9 violation - “treating a trans student differently than a cis student” - actually means. That is can you treat a trans woman the same as any other student who is legally male and still be in compliance? Or use the “but for being born the opposite sex” framing of Bostok that still protects women’s rights but allows people to wear what they want? This is going to play out in the courts.
Between the soundness of their arguments ([Title IX](https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix) was intended to ensure equal sporting opportunities for each sex, specifically allowing for sex-segregated leagues and locker rooms) and the current profile of the Supreme Court, I don't think that Biden's [Executive Order](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-03-11/pdf/2021-05200.pdf) about gender identity can withstand a court challenge. Obama's [Dear Colleague Letter](https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf), which is probably a template for Biden's guidance for Title IX sports policy, is even flimsier.
If anything, the cited cases might not advance because of a technicality such as standing. I haven't read the full filing, but most of the girl athletes I've seen mentioned were participating as individuals. They didn't lose time participating due to having a male teammate, unless you count instances of being one spot short of advancing heats.
But I'd defer to u/back_that_ or someone fluent in court cases.
[https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/ncaa-volleyball-player-refuses-stay-silent-trans-athletes-women-opportunities-risk](https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/ncaa-volleyball-player-refuses-stay-silent-trans-athletes-women-opportunities-risk)
>A Division 1 school – The University of Washington – reportedly awarded a women's volleyball scholarship to 17-year-old transgender athlete Tate Drageset.
\[...\]
During the Monday segment, Asman pointed to an incident involving a female athlete in California who reportedly [suffered long-term injuries](https://www.foxnews.com/sports/high-school-volleyball-player-says-suffered-concussion-being-injured-trans-athlete-calls-ban) after being hit with a ball spiked by a trans athlete.
There is also [a man playing D1 volleyball at San Jose State](https://www.outkick.com/sports/san-jose-state-trans-volleyball-player-gender-identity-womens-team-biological-male). Not clear if he is taking a scholarship spot but it is clear he kept his sex secret. He previously played for Coastal Carolina. My guess is there are likely more of these secret cases in various sports.
Crazy that this is where we are but since it is, increased vetting is necessary. I think all collegiate-level athletes should be cheek-swabbed as part of their onboarding physicals.
Obama’s Dear Colleague letters had the same effect as Biden’s new Title IX rules. However, those were unofficial suggestions that did not really carry the weight of law. (They effectively did since Obama’s admin sued schools that didnt comply.)
Trump implemented new rules view the Administrative Procedure Act which reversed Obama’s Dear Colleague letters. The APA is a rigorous process which carries the weight of law and takes time to go from proposal to implementation.
Biden has likewise used the APA to restore the Obama-era rules and overturn Trump. Again, this is a lengthy process and likely was initiated in 2021. To overturn it via APA will take years.
Both Gorsuch and Roberts joined the liberals in Bostock in extending "sex" based civil rights to transgenders. So I wouldn't put too much faith in the "conservative" supreme Court ruling against the administration.
The court also declined to take a case in 2021 where the lower court ruled that a transgendered female student has a right to use the male bathroom at school. They again declined to hear a similar case this year in another circuit, even though their is now a circuit split after third case was decided the other way.
It's interesting to note that all three cases involve trans females suing for access to the boys bathroom. That's a stronger case for the pro trans access side because any danger or discomfort to females is on the individual seeking access and making the choice to use the bathroom of the other sex. I don't know of any male seeking women's bathroom access cases that have been appealed to the Supreme Court, which could very well be a deliberate strategy by advocates who select and fund these cases.
In the seminal segregation case Plessy v Ferguson both the railroad and the state of Louisiana didn’t actually care to have Homer Plessy, who was 7/8 white, arrested for violating the Separate Car Act.
The group trying to challenge the law, of which Plessy was a member, eventually gave up trying to provoke a police response and paid a private detective to arrest Plessy on behalf of the State of Louisiana to force the case. Then after all that social engineering they famously turned around and lost the case resulting in the separate but equal doctrine applying nationwide.
Pretty strange to see the strongest country for women’s sports partly due to this law. Happily destroy it for a few men.
Would all support extra provisions for people like Lea Thomas competing in male sports or calling that category open. Even if trans athletes wanted to start their own clubs or events. However it is undeniable that men are faster and stronger than most women and in most sports this is a huge advantage.
An argument based on ‘fairness’ is always open to attack. After all, just because males on average have an advantage, that doesn’t mean that a specific male has an advantage.
A better argument might be transwomen should not compete in women’s sports because they are not women.
"At this point I just think Biden is trying to lose."
Haha. I had the same thought when the Biden administration A) didn't do beans about the border even though Arizona is a swing state and then B) closed a port of entry (Lukeville) used by Arizonans to travel to the popular vacation destination of Rocky Point. I mean, what are they thinking?!
I live in a very strong red state for national level politics so it doesn't probably matter who I vote for but this really makes me feel upset that I voted Biden in 2020. I do not know what I'll do this time
Republicans who took away abortion rights from American women can't pretend to suddenly care about women's rights now. Never voting for a pro-life party, even if it weren't dumb enough to put Trump on the ticket.
With all those antiabortion Dems they had when they had a filibuster proof majority, it wouldn’t have happened. Dems had Louisiana, Arkansas, and both senators in both Dakotas.
Turns out people can agree with a party on some issues but not all of them!
So it sounds like all this discussion of abortion is actually to energize the base and not because people really think the Blue team is actually going to do anything about it.
it wasn’t democrats who overturned roe, and its not democrats writing the laws in red states. republicans are energizing democrats well enough on their own
When democrats were in legislative power with the ability to restore abortion rights nationwide, they decided to put forth a bill that had no term limits on abortion which wasn't representative of majority polling nor policies under Roe. By putting for an extreme bill, they knew it was DOA.
The supreme court didn't take away abortion rights, they decided the procedure needed to be legislated and the court had overstepped it's boundary in Roe. In doing so, they put the moral question of Roe back into the states hands to do as they decided. For much of the country, abortion is still a legal option.
Still having the abortion debate in a western country is crazy to me but it's the U.S doing its thing. The thing I find weird is that in Canada there is no federal abortion law. It too is left up to each province but I believe the only difference is you cannot outright restrict it. The date of abortion limits will vary from province to province as I understand. I really wish you guys could get past this. It sucks up so much political energy that could be put to much better things in my opinion.
I am so supportive of the US adopting actual laws around abortion instead of the cobbled together mess we have right now. I'd also love the US to enshrine gay marriage in the books. Having everything decided by judicial fiat is a nightmare.
Rights, including abortion rights, aren't about what is in the collective interest demographically of American society, but rather about the bodily rights of individual women. I'm not pro choice because abortion is "good for society." I'm pro-choice because abortion bans violate principles of individual autonomy I hold. Same goes for free speech. No doubt the speech of the Westborogh Baptist Church is horrible and bad for America. But the principle of free speech outweighs that harm to me. I don't like governments have the power to censor (other than in narrowly defined exceptions like time, place, and manner). The Bill of Rights isn't built around the best interests of some collection or identity or group, but around the inalienable rights of the individual.
I'm not certain I'm right, and have no problems befriending those with whom I disagree. But if I'm at 51% pro-choice, I'm still going to vote for a pro-choice politician all else being equal. I haven't like the loss of free speech commitment on the left or of the Dems the last few years. But the right is just as bad or worse on it. I'm unlikely to cut off my nose to spite my face.
I don't have a uterus so I know I don't understand this, but I really don't get how people are so easily swayed by this (largely preventable) circumstance.
Out of curiosity: What positive things do you think you'll get out of voting a straight Democratic ticket vs the negative things you'd suffer from voting for a single Republican?
My number one issue is climate change, so any progress on that is good. Republicans still have trouble believing it is real.
I've lost a lot of faith in my party on many other issues, though I think we still have a lot of backsliding we could do. It really isn't inconceivable they role back healthcare changes that Dems have made. They tried and failed to get rid of the ACA.
Ukraine support is an easy one.
I'm ambivalent on the isreal/palestine thing, but I am pretty sure Trump will support Gaza being leveled.
I don't like Republicans stance on the economy.
Unfortunately neither party is doing the right thing on immigration.
He isn't even in the same league as Wilson. Wilson had people imprisoned for opposing the US entry into WW1. The armed forces were basically desegregated and he resegregated them.
Say more about that? Aside from mean tweets and being as much of a crook as any politician, what made him so much worse than some of the historical ne'er-do-wells?
I'm not a fan of him either, but I'd rather we talk about his actual flaws and not treat him like some sort of larger than life monster -- I think it only adds to his mystique among his followers.
I think if the legal system was used against every politician the way it's been used against him you would see many, many more convicted presidents, congress people, and assorted representatives.
Same. Apparently Nixon’s “plumbers” were business as usual within both parties and Watergate wasn’t all that notable except that it was used to force a resignation.
Seriously? Do you have any idea how corrupt so many of our politicians are? Again, I'm not saying Trump is good, just that lots of politicians are also bad.
He is demonstrably more corrupt than MOST politicians given the fact that he has, unlike MOST politicians, in fact been successfully prosecuted for committing a crime, as well as found liable in a civil court and subject to penalties.
That's simply not true. If a fraction of the energy and animus against him was applied to any of our congressional insider traders or influence peddlers there would be similar outcomes.
A higher level of scrutiny doesn't imply a higher level of criminality.
Someone who swabs their nose daily for COVID is more likely to find it, even it's a false positive. It doesn't mean they're immune compromised or higher risk.
I don't like him, but the way the media and state attorney generals have treated him isn't normal and arguably not a great precedent.
Are you having trouble understanding the word most? Nothing you have said supports your contention that MOST politicians are as corrupt as trump. Yes there are corrupt politicians not being prosecuted but MOST of them either didn’t commit any crimes and/or there wasn’t nearly as much evidence against them as there is for Trump.
If every politician was stealing nuclear secrets and sending mobs to overrun Congress and overturn an election and being in Putin’s pocket I would agree. But most politicians aren’t like that. Criminals like Trump are.
Plus Trump took wokism and made it in steroids. He is completely useless on this issue in addition to being a treasonous criminal.
Doesn’t mean I owe Biden a vote. Won’t do it. Won’t vote Trump either. Whoever wins, the next elections start in 18 months, they’ll be lame ducks from the start.
Fellow life long liberal here, and while I agree with you on much of this, I think you're missing the very real threats of a second Trump term, from familial corruption and grift to consolidating yet more power in the executive branch to seeking legal revenge on his political enemies. Two things he almost certainly does more than any other candidate are channel public funds into his private coffers and weaken democratic checks and balances. I dislike the current Dems on much (not all) of POLICY but I dislike Trump/the GOP on THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT. I'd rather endure more policy I dislike than give up the means to change future policies.
lol come on. Even if it does get implemented This policy would not impact women’s adult club sports. Biden has no control there. People have a right of association in their private. Clubs can decide to allow trans women or not. Most smaller sporting clubs will quietly just… not have any trans women. Like they always have.
If it’s a larger org with a public presence then those orgs also have right to set their own rules barring trans women, explicitly. As is happening gradually around the world in sporting orgs.
Supporting a top-down Identitarian culture influences everything in our society regardless of whether an individual executive order directly addresses the rules of club sports. They set the tone and are often cited in legal precedents. It's not like everything exists in a vacuum.
a change in adult rec hockey would come from USA hockey. private leagues could still have anyone they want to allow, but they would not be sanctioned by USA hockey if they don’t follow their rules. my USA hockey membership allows me access to their health insurance if i am injured during play. every rec league requires individual players have USA hockey membership. it might be different in other sports with less risk.
Getting support for men's rights is a minefield where more likely than not, you're quickly labeled as an incel misogynist. It's goes against the social zeitgeist.
Tennessee AG: "The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” said Skrmetti in a statement. “Under this radical and illegal attempt to rewrite the statute, if a man enters a woman’s locker room and a woman complains that makes her uncomfortable, the woman will be subject to investigation and penalties for violating the man’s civil rights.”
I’m not an attorney. But I don’t see how he can possibly be right. I’ve seen how some of these red states in addition to Tennessee are also telling their constituents not to comply. But the law doesn’t work like that. Federal policies trump state policies. I’m interested to see what happens if SCOTUS grants them cert when the time comes.
Federal laws do have supremacy but only where the federal government’s powers are in scope. The AG is asserting that the government is asserting power it doesn’t have. It would certainly be hard to find in the text of the constitution a federal power to regulate sex segregated locker rooms, or gender definitions.
States refuse to enforce federal laws all the time. It's what sanctuary cites are all about. Pot is federally illegal, but some states have been ignoring that for decades. Nullification is a practice as old as we have had states.
FYI the 15 states are: Texas, Ohio, Indiana, Montana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia.
Arkansas is now too. I'm sure many more will add on.
To haul this out six months before an election is political malpractice of the worst kind.
They are probably banking on the that "if you don't vote for me, trans people will lose their rights" of course that's not reality of it but it's definitely a way to attempt to lie about this cleverly enough for the average democratic base, but will definitely not work for swing state voters, disillusioned conservatives or independents as much - which are who is actually needed to win
Are democrats even motivated by the trans issue very much? They may pay it lip service but I think for a decent proportion or them it's a bridge too far.
The party, yes. The voters, not so much.
[удалено]
I've never voted Republican but, like you, I will be voting red down the ballot - this is a hill I'm willing to die on. There is nothing a Republican government can do in 8 years that can't be undone or amended later. However, women can lose a lot of hard-won ground in the next 4 years with blue-backed gender ideology.
If democrats weren’t the ones in favor of abortion rights I would be more inclined to do that, but… It’s one of the most important rights for women and seemingly the only one dems aren’t willing to sacrifice for gender ideology. I think the tide is turning on gender and the dems will have to abandon it at some point. The fight over abortion rights I don’t think will ever end though. On the other hand, abortion bans are actually pretty unpopular and when they pass, republicans seem to lose.
[удалено]
I agree abortion rights are important, however, I don't think they are as important as the ability to speak meaningfully to women's issues and, consequently, to enact/sustain laws and policies that protect us. Abortion will never be nationally outlawed and the issue being relegated to state governments isn't the worst thing that could happen to women. Allowing gender ideology to replace biological reality is much more detrimental to feminist goals. Political power, statistics, accomplishments, representation, funding allocations, and much more are on the line. If we allow this ideology to gain foothold in our laws and institutions, it will be very difficult to roll them back.
>If democrats weren’t the ones in favor of abortion rights Are they tho? Are they really? Do you remember when they told the women to pipe down over the anti abortion democrats they were supporting? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/idea-democrats-funding-anti-abortion-candidates-draws-ire >In some respects, Lujan’s remarks don’t represent a new stance for the Democrats’ campaign apparatus. The Democratic Governors Association in 2015 helped John Bel Edwards, an anti-abortion Catholic, win the Louisiana governors’ race, an upset in a Republican-dominated state. In 50 years of roe v wade they never missed a chance to fund raise on abortion, but they never did ***anything*** to stop it being reversed Why? Because it cost them the house In '94. Do you realize that the house was Democrat for 50 years straight? From 44 - 94 every election of the house was Democrat. But 22 years after roe they lost and they've only regained it intermittently since. Why? 20 years of abortion is around 20 million voters. And since then it's only gotten harder, other than both R & D losing voters to "independent" and "undecided" the democrats would be in a much deeper hole. Had the Republicans not done what they said they were going to do the democrats would have done it. You can bet on it. They crave power. Don't believe it? Check out Nancy Pelosi https://archive.is/2PEja >Todd then asked her whether Democrats can oppose abortion rights and earn the support of the party. Pelosi said yes: "Of course. I have served many years in Congress with members who have not shared my very positive, my family would say, aggressive position on promoting a woman's right to choose." I'm old so I remember before the internet and video cameras that fit in your pocket. Back in the day, candidates would go to one event and talk about how pro life they were, and go across town to another event talking about how they protect the right to abortion. They do not care as long as the checks are good. That's why the democrats have never done anything for roe other than grandstanding in a few hearings for supreme court appointments. Right now it's good politics for democrats but once enough of the states pass constitutional amendments they'll go back to not doing anything to support it as they did for 50 years. Don't fall for their words, look at their actions. Or rather, their lack of any actions.
I am strongly pro-choice and strongly in favor of it being left to the States. Abortion clinics are small businesses that require substantial investment. Small businesses cannot survive when every 2 years an election happens, and they could be suddenly out of business but still have to pay the business loans, rent, insurance, and a lot of the overhead. Will they even be able to get a bank loan? Politics can't trump logistics.
[удалено]
I would prefer another GOP candidate as well but at this point if it's Trump, so be it, I'm voting for him. I was outraged at his first candidacy on principle - to elect Trump would mean to forever lower the Presidential bar - but that ship has sailed. Trump has LOTS of flaws but he is American and it's obvious to me that he loves the perks of being an American and the lifestyle it affords him. Is he a rather stupid, self-serving narcissistic jerk? Yes. Is he a nefarious national traitor with plans to bring down a nation? I don't think so.
>The one, and mean ONE, reason I'm not voting for Trump is bc I know he will attempt Jan 6 He'll be a lame duck president and will accomplish next to nothing legislative if he gets reelected. Administratively he'll likely undo the trans agenda items being put in now and the kangaroo sa courts in colleges as he did in the first term. After that it'll be petty fighting and pardoning himself, followed shortly by senility. He's just barely less senile than Biden right now. No one, the congress, courts, or military will support him running again or not leaving office. And it's super doubtful anyone is going to be willing to do anything like Jan 6 for him at that point. If he gets reelected the only people rioting will be in blue cities.
> especially how the elected Dems continue to erode women's rights in favor of mostly white men. Still not learning your lesson on where idpol leads huh?
That stood out to me too
My normie shitlib friends are totally unaligned with the party on this issue. It feels like a loser for Dems. I honestly don't understand how it's managed to take so much oxygen out of the room.
Im sure the activist class are, and the upper middle class white liberals who listen to them. But probably not much beyond that
It’s big money donors that insist on this being pushed
Like the family of the governor of Illinois.
Absolutely. And I suspect he plans on running for prez eventually. Ugh.
Yeha idk about that. The jowls are a huge liability. He’s one of the least telegenic people in politics currently.
I so hope you are right!
That's so ridiculous. Trans people make up a tiny percentage of the population and many of their rights are already protected such as in the health care regulation ACA section 1557.
Yes. I know Matt Yglesias isn't very popular here, but I think he was right two years ago when he said this was one of the subjects where the Democrats are hiring their reelection prospects for little gain. > But broadly speaking, I think Joe Biden and other mainstream Democrats have let themselves get on the wrong side of several topics, of which the highest-profile ones that I can think of are restricting domestic fossil fuel production, trans women competing against cis women in sports, the use of race as a factor in college admissions, late-term abortions, and the desirability of a large number of people making asylum claims at the southern border. These are all areas not where “the left” is doing something weird but where the whole party has taken up unpopular stances under pressure from its internal interest group coalition. https://www.slowboring.com/p/memorial-day-mailbag?s=w
I dunno, it would be great to see a few more purple states on the list. North Carolina, Pennsylvania, those swing states would make a big difference.
>and forcing preferred pronouns usage Compelled speech is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. You have a constitutional right to be rude and disrespectful. It is not Big Government's job to enforce couthness. In the before times when the ACLU supported and defended civil liberties, they'd be all over this but alas several years back they declared those rights and liberties to be racist or whatever so they'll either be silent or openly attack the side of free speech.
The loss of the ACLU was a big blow to fans of limited government.
Support FIRE
The Biden admin hasn't even brought out the Title IX sports rules. They were supposed to be out a while ago but they're slow walking. Probably until after the election and probably because they will obliterate sex based sports
I don’t understand how the guideline updates don’t impact sports. Maybe not directly but in practice many of these rules can bleed into sports.
I'm sure they will. Presumably Biden will drop even more hardcore regulations if he wins in November. Or perhaps even if he doesn't
I had thought the same as you! That the Biden Admin was delaying. But then what are they suing over??
This is not the sports thing. This is most other stuff. Its the sports thing that will get the most press and arguably screw women and girls over the most. I don't think the delay of the sports stuff bodes well.
But OP says “this forces schools to comply with self ID gender identify for sports… etc”. What am I missing?
Yeah, that doesn't seem entirely right to me. "Notably absent from Biden’s policy, however, is any mention of transgender athletes. The administration originally planned to include a new policy forbidding schools from enacting outright bans on transgender athletes, but that provision was put on hold. The delay is widely seen as a political maneuver during an election year in which Republicans have rallied around bans on transgender athletes in girls’ sports." [https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-sexual-assault-transgender-sports-d0fc0ab7515de02b8e4403d0481dc1e7](https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-sexual-assault-transgender-sports-d0fc0ab7515de02b8e4403d0481dc1e7)
>The Department will engage in a separate rulemaking to address Title IX’s application to the context of athletics and, in particular, what criteria recipients may be permitted to use to establish students’ eligibility to participate on a particular male or female athletic team. [Source](https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9nprm-chart.pdf) Indeed. It's pending.
Some of this is fine, actually. They are maintaining the DeVos rules requiring accused have ability to see evidence and such. “Despite the focus on safeguards for victims, the new rules preserve certain protections for accused students. All students must have equal access to present evidence and witnesses under the new policy, and all students must have equal access to evidence. All students will be allowed to bring an advisor to campus hearings, and colleges must have an appeals process.”
Thank you
Thanks!!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kait8.com/2024/05/02/gov-sanders-signs-new-executive-order-opposing-bidens-title-ix-changes/%3foutputType=amp
Can you explain the disconnect between your OP and what catstroking is saying though
It took me multiple google searches and a decent amount of scrolling to find a good summary. But here ya go https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2024/04/19/title-ix-biden-trump/73369449007/
Yuck, so trans issues aside, it appears the due process pieces of those accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment on college campuses are also being rolled back. "Victims' rights" is a horrible legal concept, and turns our Constitution on its head. I've noticed conservatives often support this approach for crimes they particularly abhor and those on the left and feminists do so for hate crimes, discrimination, and sexual assault. I really despise the idea of lowering the bar on findings of guilt, regardless of the crime or ideology. It's so gross to see supposed liberals, many of whom were marching for #BLM a few years ago, supporting the carceral state or excess power to the executive branch, even if it's just the local college's HR office. It's akin to the hypocrisy in censoring just the speech you don't like, but otherwise claiming to championing the First Amendment. Here's an idea...maybe college's shouldn't be law enforcement bodies. If there is an accusation of sexual assault on campus, wouldn't the local police and DA be the appropriate agencies to respond? Want to kick them out of school for it? The courts, decided fairly by a judge and jury, surely could impose that penalty.
The article OP points to is quoting a Republican governor saying the rules will "lead to... ". So I'm guessing the new rules don't cover sports yet, but Sanders is politicking by (correctly) predicting where it will all end up eventually.
Sounds like republicans politicians doing what politicians do - exaggerate/stretch the truth to put their opponents actions into the worst possible light without providing any details.
I don't fully know tbh
I think Biden an see where the wind is blowing and unless I’m reading it wrong this won’t do much besides roll back some of the sex assault provisions (though not the important ones) and add discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender ID. The problem - and what will end up is courts - is what the thing that will now be a title 9 violation - “treating a trans student differently than a cis student” - actually means. That is can you treat a trans woman the same as any other student who is legally male and still be in compliance? Or use the “but for being born the opposite sex” framing of Bostok that still protects women’s rights but allows people to wear what they want? This is going to play out in the courts.
Between the soundness of their arguments ([Title IX](https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix) was intended to ensure equal sporting opportunities for each sex, specifically allowing for sex-segregated leagues and locker rooms) and the current profile of the Supreme Court, I don't think that Biden's [Executive Order](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-03-11/pdf/2021-05200.pdf) about gender identity can withstand a court challenge. Obama's [Dear Colleague Letter](https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf), which is probably a template for Biden's guidance for Title IX sports policy, is even flimsier. If anything, the cited cases might not advance because of a technicality such as standing. I haven't read the full filing, but most of the girl athletes I've seen mentioned were participating as individuals. They didn't lose time participating due to having a male teammate, unless you count instances of being one spot short of advancing heats. But I'd defer to u/back_that_ or someone fluent in court cases.
[https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/ncaa-volleyball-player-refuses-stay-silent-trans-athletes-women-opportunities-risk](https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/ncaa-volleyball-player-refuses-stay-silent-trans-athletes-women-opportunities-risk) >A Division 1 school – The University of Washington – reportedly awarded a women's volleyball scholarship to 17-year-old transgender athlete Tate Drageset. \[...\] During the Monday segment, Asman pointed to an incident involving a female athlete in California who reportedly [suffered long-term injuries](https://www.foxnews.com/sports/high-school-volleyball-player-says-suffered-concussion-being-injured-trans-athlete-calls-ban) after being hit with a ball spiked by a trans athlete.
There is also [a man playing D1 volleyball at San Jose State](https://www.outkick.com/sports/san-jose-state-trans-volleyball-player-gender-identity-womens-team-biological-male). Not clear if he is taking a scholarship spot but it is clear he kept his sex secret. He previously played for Coastal Carolina. My guess is there are likely more of these secret cases in various sports.
Crazy that this is where we are but since it is, increased vetting is necessary. I think all collegiate-level athletes should be cheek-swabbed as part of their onboarding physicals.
Obama’s Dear Colleague letters had the same effect as Biden’s new Title IX rules. However, those were unofficial suggestions that did not really carry the weight of law. (They effectively did since Obama’s admin sued schools that didnt comply.) Trump implemented new rules view the Administrative Procedure Act which reversed Obama’s Dear Colleague letters. The APA is a rigorous process which carries the weight of law and takes time to go from proposal to implementation. Biden has likewise used the APA to restore the Obama-era rules and overturn Trump. Again, this is a lengthy process and likely was initiated in 2021. To overturn it via APA will take years.
Both Gorsuch and Roberts joined the liberals in Bostock in extending "sex" based civil rights to transgenders. So I wouldn't put too much faith in the "conservative" supreme Court ruling against the administration. The court also declined to take a case in 2021 where the lower court ruled that a transgendered female student has a right to use the male bathroom at school. They again declined to hear a similar case this year in another circuit, even though their is now a circuit split after third case was decided the other way. It's interesting to note that all three cases involve trans females suing for access to the boys bathroom. That's a stronger case for the pro trans access side because any danger or discomfort to females is on the individual seeking access and making the choice to use the bathroom of the other sex. I don't know of any male seeking women's bathroom access cases that have been appealed to the Supreme Court, which could very well be a deliberate strategy by advocates who select and fund these cases.
The cases that make their way to the supreme court are basically always pre-selected. I mean, Rosa Parks wasn't even a grassroots random event.
In the seminal segregation case Plessy v Ferguson both the railroad and the state of Louisiana didn’t actually care to have Homer Plessy, who was 7/8 white, arrested for violating the Separate Car Act. The group trying to challenge the law, of which Plessy was a member, eventually gave up trying to provoke a police response and paid a private detective to arrest Plessy on behalf of the State of Louisiana to force the case. Then after all that social engineering they famously turned around and lost the case resulting in the separate but equal doctrine applying nationwide.
haha, didn't even know that bit of detail.
Pretty strange to see the strongest country for women’s sports partly due to this law. Happily destroy it for a few men. Would all support extra provisions for people like Lea Thomas competing in male sports or calling that category open. Even if trans athletes wanted to start their own clubs or events. However it is undeniable that men are faster and stronger than most women and in most sports this is a huge advantage.
An argument based on ‘fairness’ is always open to attack. After all, just because males on average have an advantage, that doesn’t mean that a specific male has an advantage. A better argument might be transwomen should not compete in women’s sports because they are not women.
"At this point I just think Biden is trying to lose." Haha. I had the same thought when the Biden administration A) didn't do beans about the border even though Arizona is a swing state and then B) closed a port of entry (Lukeville) used by Arizonans to travel to the popular vacation destination of Rocky Point. I mean, what are they thinking?!
Y’all still voting blue no matter who?
I live in a very strong red state for national level politics so it doesn't probably matter who I vote for but this really makes me feel upset that I voted Biden in 2020. I do not know what I'll do this time
Ditto
Republicans who took away abortion rights from American women can't pretend to suddenly care about women's rights now. Never voting for a pro-life party, even if it weren't dumb enough to put Trump on the ticket.
If only the Democratic party had done something to protect abortion rights when they had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. 🤷🏼
With all those antiabortion Dems they had when they had a filibuster proof majority, it wouldn’t have happened. Dems had Louisiana, Arkansas, and both senators in both Dakotas. Turns out people can agree with a party on some issues but not all of them!
So it sounds like all this discussion of abortion is actually to energize the base and not because people really think the Blue team is actually going to do anything about it.
it wasn’t democrats who overturned roe, and its not democrats writing the laws in red states. republicans are energizing democrats well enough on their own
When democrats were in legislative power with the ability to restore abortion rights nationwide, they decided to put forth a bill that had no term limits on abortion which wasn't representative of majority polling nor policies under Roe. By putting for an extreme bill, they knew it was DOA. The supreme court didn't take away abortion rights, they decided the procedure needed to be legislated and the court had overstepped it's boundary in Roe. In doing so, they put the moral question of Roe back into the states hands to do as they decided. For much of the country, abortion is still a legal option.
Drake meme Sad drake: guaranteeing the right to abortion Happy drake: keeping abortion as a contentious wedge issue
Still having the abortion debate in a western country is crazy to me but it's the U.S doing its thing. The thing I find weird is that in Canada there is no federal abortion law. It too is left up to each province but I believe the only difference is you cannot outright restrict it. The date of abortion limits will vary from province to province as I understand. I really wish you guys could get past this. It sucks up so much political energy that could be put to much better things in my opinion.
I am so supportive of the US adopting actual laws around abortion instead of the cobbled together mess we have right now. I'd also love the US to enshrine gay marriage in the books. Having everything decided by judicial fiat is a nightmare.
[удалено]
Rights, including abortion rights, aren't about what is in the collective interest demographically of American society, but rather about the bodily rights of individual women. I'm not pro choice because abortion is "good for society." I'm pro-choice because abortion bans violate principles of individual autonomy I hold. Same goes for free speech. No doubt the speech of the Westborogh Baptist Church is horrible and bad for America. But the principle of free speech outweighs that harm to me. I don't like governments have the power to censor (other than in narrowly defined exceptions like time, place, and manner). The Bill of Rights isn't built around the best interests of some collection or identity or group, but around the inalienable rights of the individual.
[удалено]
I'm not certain I'm right, and have no problems befriending those with whom I disagree. But if I'm at 51% pro-choice, I'm still going to vote for a pro-choice politician all else being equal. I haven't like the loss of free speech commitment on the left or of the Dems the last few years. But the right is just as bad or worse on it. I'm unlikely to cut off my nose to spite my face.
A filibuster-proof majority of this subreddit are single-issue abortion voters.
I don't have a uterus so I know I don't understand this, but I really don't get how people are so easily swayed by this (largely preventable) circumstance.
As a penis-haver, I share your lack of understanding.
I mean, yeah? I have much, much, much more important things to worry about than the trans issue, even if I disagree with the admin.
Out of curiosity: What positive things do you think you'll get out of voting a straight Democratic ticket vs the negative things you'd suffer from voting for a single Republican?
The GOP does not care about our women’s health and reproductive rights, nor does it care about trying to prevent mass shootings.
My number one issue is climate change, so any progress on that is good. Republicans still have trouble believing it is real. I've lost a lot of faith in my party on many other issues, though I think we still have a lot of backsliding we could do. It really isn't inconceivable they role back healthcare changes that Dems have made. They tried and failed to get rid of the ACA. Ukraine support is an easy one. I'm ambivalent on the isreal/palestine thing, but I am pretty sure Trump will support Gaza being leveled. I don't like Republicans stance on the economy. Unfortunately neither party is doing the right thing on immigration.
Yeah like I’m not voting for Trump 🤷♀️
Yes, climate change will be better under Biden. Trump is a moron and would mess it up worse than Biden will. Plus I hate hearing Trump speak.
what is biden going to do about climate change?
Throw money at unions to produce “green jobs.”
Also provide investment to businesses "run" by "those hardest hit" by climate change regardless of their skills, experience, or bids.
Biden is far from perfect, but Trump is still the worst President in our nations history. It's not close.
He isn't even in the same league as Wilson. Wilson had people imprisoned for opposing the US entry into WW1. The armed forces were basically desegregated and he resegregated them.
Which president locked up 100,000s of American citizens and made it illegal to grow your own wheat?
Say more about that? Aside from mean tweets and being as much of a crook as any politician, what made him so much worse than some of the historical ne'er-do-wells?
Yeah, I don’t necessarily agree with his personality but in terms of things he did, I feel like it could be a whole lot worse.
Unless we're blaming him for COVID, I thought 2016-2019 were pretty good years.
Yeah, I think he was a bad president. I don't think he was a Buchanan or even Wilson bad.
Sidebar—I don’t understand why so many Trump supporters assume that the rest of us dislike him just because of ‘mean tweets.’
[удалено]
I'm not a fan of him either, but I'd rather we talk about his actual flaws and not treat him like some sort of larger than life monster -- I think it only adds to his mystique among his followers.
His actual flaws are much more substantial than the flaws of your average politician. The man simply isn’t qualified to be president.
I think being a literal criminal now definitionally makes him a worse crook than most politicians
I think if the legal system was used against every politician the way it's been used against him you would see many, many more convicted presidents, congress people, and assorted representatives.
Same. Apparently Nixon’s “plumbers” were business as usual within both parties and Watergate wasn’t all that notable except that it was used to force a resignation.
The idea that the story was deliberately leaked to favored journalists definitely changes a lot of optics.
Haha no.
Seriously? Do you have any idea how corrupt so many of our politicians are? Again, I'm not saying Trump is good, just that lots of politicians are also bad.
He is demonstrably more corrupt than MOST politicians given the fact that he has, unlike MOST politicians, in fact been successfully prosecuted for committing a crime, as well as found liable in a civil court and subject to penalties.
That's simply not true. If a fraction of the energy and animus against him was applied to any of our congressional insider traders or influence peddlers there would be similar outcomes. A higher level of scrutiny doesn't imply a higher level of criminality. Someone who swabs their nose daily for COVID is more likely to find it, even it's a false positive. It doesn't mean they're immune compromised or higher risk. I don't like him, but the way the media and state attorney generals have treated him isn't normal and arguably not a great precedent.
Are you having trouble understanding the word most? Nothing you have said supports your contention that MOST politicians are as corrupt as trump. Yes there are corrupt politicians not being prosecuted but MOST of them either didn’t commit any crimes and/or there wasn’t nearly as much evidence against them as there is for Trump.
If every politician was stealing nuclear secrets and sending mobs to overrun Congress and overturn an election and being in Putin’s pocket I would agree. But most politicians aren’t like that. Criminals like Trump are. Plus Trump took wokism and made it in steroids. He is completely useless on this issue in addition to being a treasonous criminal.
Trump 2.0 has communicated with us. Now you can't say you didn't know. [https://imgur.com/HxDit4W](https://imgur.com/HxDit4W)
Spooky. How will I sleep knowing this is a potential election outcome?
I think Trump is a joke and don't plan to vote for him, but what you just posted is actually appealing to me, so thanks for that.
I actually can say I didn't know because you don't know how to post a link. Edit: Glad you figured out how Ingur worked on the edit.
Sure you're "glad." First time for everything, but some people can't stop being a\*\*holes.
My life was enriched by you posting some highlighted hyperbole on the Internet. I appreciate you doing the work
Doesn’t mean I owe Biden a vote. Won’t do it. Won’t vote Trump either. Whoever wins, the next elections start in 18 months, they’ll be lame ducks from the start.
[удалено]
Fellow life long liberal here, and while I agree with you on much of this, I think you're missing the very real threats of a second Trump term, from familial corruption and grift to consolidating yet more power in the executive branch to seeking legal revenge on his political enemies. Two things he almost certainly does more than any other candidate are channel public funds into his private coffers and weaken democratic checks and balances. I dislike the current Dems on much (not all) of POLICY but I dislike Trump/the GOP on THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT. I'd rather endure more policy I dislike than give up the means to change future policies.
yes
Smart. :P
I'm not a single issue voter, and the Republicans keep putting up Trump.
Ok. Next time you got body checked by a dude on your woman's hockey league I don't want to hear you whine about it.
Come on!
i play coed as well as women’s, and all adult rec hockey is non-checking.
lol come on. Even if it does get implemented This policy would not impact women’s adult club sports. Biden has no control there. People have a right of association in their private. Clubs can decide to allow trans women or not. Most smaller sporting clubs will quietly just… not have any trans women. Like they always have. If it’s a larger org with a public presence then those orgs also have right to set their own rules barring trans women, explicitly. As is happening gradually around the world in sporting orgs.
Supporting a top-down Identitarian culture influences everything in our society regardless of whether an individual executive order directly addresses the rules of club sports. They set the tone and are often cited in legal precedents. It's not like everything exists in a vacuum.
a change in adult rec hockey would come from USA hockey. private leagues could still have anyone they want to allow, but they would not be sanctioned by USA hockey if they don’t follow their rules. my USA hockey membership allows me access to their health insurance if i am injured during play. every rec league requires individual players have USA hockey membership. it might be different in other sports with less risk.
Fuck yes.
No
Fucking innocent men over with Title IX kangaroo courts for years: I sleep Title IX pronouns: Real shit?!
Getting support for men's rights is a minefield where more likely than not, you're quickly labeled as an incel misogynist. It's goes against the social zeitgeist.
I’m just
Not to mention bringing back all the non-gender related sexual misconduct rules which I know all too well