Just to clarify, since the double (triple?) negative is a bit confusing ... this (the veto) is a pro-LGBTQ+ action ... although it also sounds like the AR legislature may override the veto and...
Just to clarify, since the double (triple?) negative is a bit confusing ... this (the veto) is a pro-LGBTQ+ action ... although it also sounds like the AR legislature may override the veto and make this a law, anyway.
Correct, the veto was a pro-LGBTQ+ action. The bill itself would basically ban anyone under 18 from getting treatment related to being transgender. From the article:
Correct, the veto was a pro-LGBTQ+ action. The bill itself would basically ban anyone under 18 from getting treatment related to being transgender.
From the article:
The bill, approved in the House and Senate last month, would bar transgender youth from obtaining gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy. It also would prohibit medical providers from making referrals to other health care professionals for gender-affirming procedures for those under 18.
Hi, annoying guy here with an off-topic comment to clarify your clarification. AK is the abbreviation for Alaska, AR is the abbreviation for Arkansas. I know, I'm the worst.
Hi, annoying guy here with an off-topic comment to clarify your clarification. AK is the abbreviation for Alaska, AR is the abbreviation for Arkansas. I know, I'm the worst.
The veto has been over-ruled. https://twitter.com/chasestrangio/status/1379510072716488715 This means it will become law. ACLU are going to take it through the courts.
As much as I support the legal battles against these bills, they do make me a bit nervous. I don’t know how true this is, but I heard secondhand from a conservative family member that part of the...
As much as I support the legal battles against these bills, they do make me a bit nervous. I don’t know how true this is, but I heard secondhand from a conservative family member that part of the driving force of these bills (and why we’re seeing so many of them right now) is that their anti-trans backers are actually wanting them to be challenged. They’re hoping one of them will make it up to and be taken by the Supreme Court, in hopes that they will rule in their favor (part of the reason why they pushed so hard for Amy Coney Barrett was for her to rule on battles like this one). If this happens, it would effectively nationalize trans discrimination — a sort of inverse to what the Obergefell ruling did for marriage equality.
I really hope I’m wrong on this, but even the mere prospect of it leaves me with a pit in my stomach. America has a long history with discriminatory Supreme Court rulings that have far reaching effects and are incredibly hard to correct once given. It would be absolutely debilitating if the Supreme Court were to codify trans inequality for the whole country.
Interpretation of case law can be overturned by creation of new law, but I also wonder what the outcome may be especially since trans rights are apparently so controversial. I decided to go on a...
Interpretation of case law can be overturned by creation of new law, but I also wonder what the outcome may be especially since trans rights are apparently so controversial.
I decided to go on a short hunt online to see what kind of sentiment polls I could find, and wow things are quite a bit worse than I thought. I find it particularly troublesome that bathroom law support has actually decreased over the time-frame of 2017 to 2019 and as someone who is nonbinary, a bit troubled by how many people view gender as binary. I find it particularly telling how much many of these takes relax when someone knows someone who is transgender and how visibility is so incredibly important to having a humanistic stance on these issues.
It's refreshing to see a Republican speaking out against the traditional talking points. This was always the correct answer, this is tough stuff for parents and kids to work through and...
It's refreshing to see a Republican speaking out against the traditional talking points.
He told reporters that it would set "new standards of legislative interference with physicians and parents as they deal with some of the most complex and sensitive matters involving young people."
This was always the correct answer, this is tough stuff for parents and kids to work through and legislating against people living it is some Dick Dastardly shit. And come off it with the name of the bill. I mean you could give them the benifit of the doubt that they're trying to protect children but calling it "experimentation" just highlights how little they respect the kids, parents, and doctors involved.
Just to clarify, since the double (triple?) negative is a bit confusing ... this (the veto) is a pro-LGBTQ+ action ... although it also sounds like the AR legislature may override the veto and make this a law, anyway.
Edited to further clarify the clarification.
Correct, the veto was a pro-LGBTQ+ action. The bill itself would basically ban anyone under 18 from getting treatment related to being transgender.
From the article:
Hi, annoying guy here with an off-topic comment to clarify your clarification. AK is the abbreviation for Alaska, AR is the abbreviation for Arkansas. I know, I'm the worst.
Not your fault. Whose bright idea was it to name fifteen different states with 'A'?
Edit: fixed
George Kingsley Zipf?
The veto has been over-ruled. https://twitter.com/chasestrangio/status/1379510072716488715
This means it will become law. ACLU are going to take it through the courts.
As much as I support the legal battles against these bills, they do make me a bit nervous. I don’t know how true this is, but I heard secondhand from a conservative family member that part of the driving force of these bills (and why we’re seeing so many of them right now) is that their anti-trans backers are actually wanting them to be challenged. They’re hoping one of them will make it up to and be taken by the Supreme Court, in hopes that they will rule in their favor (part of the reason why they pushed so hard for Amy Coney Barrett was for her to rule on battles like this one). If this happens, it would effectively nationalize trans discrimination — a sort of inverse to what the Obergefell ruling did for marriage equality.
I really hope I’m wrong on this, but even the mere prospect of it leaves me with a pit in my stomach. America has a long history with discriminatory Supreme Court rulings that have far reaching effects and are incredibly hard to correct once given. It would be absolutely debilitating if the Supreme Court were to codify trans inequality for the whole country.
Interpretation of case law can be overturned by creation of new law, but I also wonder what the outcome may be especially since trans rights are apparently so controversial.
I decided to go on a short hunt online to see what kind of sentiment polls I could find, and wow things are quite a bit worse than I thought. I find it particularly troublesome that bathroom law support has actually decreased over the time-frame of 2017 to 2019 and as someone who is nonbinary, a bit troubled by how many people view gender as binary. I find it particularly telling how much many of these takes relax when someone knows someone who is transgender and how visibility is so incredibly important to having a humanistic stance on these issues.
It's refreshing to see a Republican speaking out against the traditional talking points.
This was always the correct answer, this is tough stuff for parents and kids to work through and legislating against people living it is some Dick Dastardly shit. And come off it with the name of the bill. I mean you could give them the benifit of the doubt that they're trying to protect children but calling it "experimentation" just highlights how little they respect the kids, parents, and doctors involved.