Troacctid

How? How are you removing rights? Heck, how is it even a problem if a cis woman pretends to be trans so she can use the men's room while minding her own business and not disturbing anyone?

It doesn't mean you're transphobic. It just means you are valuing the rights of transphobic people to persecute trans people above the rights of trans people to not be victims of persecution. Either that or you just have no idea what you're talking about and are holding a position based on misinformation. Or both, I guess. They're not mutually exclusive. The Constitution explicitly allows the federal government to intervene to protect civil rights. You may have heard of something called the 14th Amendment. It is part of the Constitution. And by the way, I don't know if you realized this, but you are implying here that trans people are more likely to be perverts, which is actually very offensive.

Well, like I said, it's just 100% naked transphobia with no other justification, so the only real acceptable solution is for them to bugger off and leave trans people alone instead of senselessly persecuting them.

It sure was great back when states were allowed to set rules saying that black students weren't allowed. Totally nothing wrong with that at all. Too bad the federal government shut that down, right? There's this thing called Title IX. I'm sorry, how is letting trans kids use the correct bathroom a violation of cis kids' rights? What right is this exactly? The right to not have to look at or be in the same room as a trans person? Forcing trans people to use the wrong restroom does zilch to prevent harassment and sexual assault. In fact, it actually increases incidences of harassment and assault against trans people. But hey, I guess as long as your one cis girl is safe, it doesn't matter that a few thousand trans kids were beaten up, bullied, psychologically injured, and put at significantly increased risk of suicide? What in the Nine Hells are you even talking about. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Defending this little girl from what? From being in the same room as a transgender person? Oh, the horror. Apparently not, if you're forcing a trans girl presenting as female to use the men's room and out herself. Okay, for one thing, no, you don't know what you're talking about. And for another thing, I don't know if you failed to realize that you're currently defending policies that treat trans women as men and trans men as women. Pretty sure it's a full correction, since I said non-Muslims were exempt, and then you said no, it didn't matter if you're Muslim, and then I corrected you. I could point directly to the State Department Summary of Refugee Admission from 2011 if you like.

1. The rule in question applies to public schools, which are not private entities. 2. Great, so stepping in to bar people from denying civil rights to trans people does qualify. It sounds like we are in agreement that Trump's policy is terrible. 3. Section 5, subsections b and e. Members of a religious minority in the country (and all the countries are majority-Muslim) are explicitly called out as exceptions to the ban. 4. Fact check. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/

I understand it's not at all unusual in Putin's Russia. Of course it's difficult to prove anything, but... http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2016/jan/04/does-vladimir-putin-kill-journalists/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/21/the-complicated-reality-behind-trumps-claim-that-theres-no-proof-putin-had-journalists-killed/

1. Hey guess what the rule in question applies to public schools, which are funded and overseen by...the government. Also to private schools that receive funding grants from...that's right, the government again. 2. You don't believe the government should step in to protect civil rights? Would you also have opposed the 14th amendment? The Civil Rights Act of 1964? Don't tell me you're against the Civil Rights Act. How can you be against the Civil Rights Act? What is the government even for if it's not going to defend its citizens' individual liberties? 3. Trump's order ditched the screening process and replaced it with a red rubber stamp that says "Rejected." It doesn't matter how much you have been vetted under Trump's order. If you are a Muslim from those countries, you cannot come into the United States. Have a green card? Trump's policy doesn't care, you can't come in. Have a visa? Trump's policy doesn't care, you can't come in. Went through an intense three-year vetting process that, so far, according to the data we have, has never allowed a terrorist through? Trump's policy doesn't care, you can't come in. Oh, but wait, hang on, you're not a Muslim? Never mind, come right in, friend. Oh, and Obama did not ban refugees. Not at any point in his presidency. That did not happen.

Hey, that part wasn't sarcastic, it was just passive-aggressive! Totally different. For serious, though, I know y'all aren't transphobic. And that's why you need to hold your representatives accountable. Call your congresspeople and tell them you won't stand for that ****. And if they're supporting legislation like that—don't vote for them! Vote for their opponent in their next election (primary or general, or both, why not). Get their butts out of your Senate seats. Because that should be a dealbreaker, plain and simple. I mean maybe you're already doing that, in which case...uh...keep it up, I guess.

Okay, fine, revised statement, the Republican Party is not anti-LGBT, its elected officials overwhelmingly just happen to hold anti-LGBT stances, sponsor anti-LGBT legislation, and vehemently oppose pro-LGBT policies. As evidenced by the things they are doing right now, like, actual current events that are happening. And of course I have every confidence that the Republicans HERE are good people who do not condone such things and in fact are probably calling their representatives right now to complain about these reprehensible policies, like for example this recent instance of naked transphobia with no tangible benefits or practical purpose other than to discriminate against trans people.

I mean, since they've translated it into actual policies, yes, it does mean more than election season talking points. And even if it were just election season talking points—that's what the party wants to broadcast that they stand for. They are proud to be anti-LGBT.

Too late for that. They've already baked homophobia and transphobia directly into their party platform.

It's just naked transphobia. It serves no other purpose and provides zero practical benefit. All it does is persecute trans kids. This is what today's Republican Party stands for.

Obama issued a guideline to public schools telling them to allow transgender students to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity. On Friday, after the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, the Trump administration announced it was abandoning this policy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/trump-administration-signals-change-in-policy-for-transgender-students/2017/02/11/c2fd138e-f051-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html

Meanwhile, this past week, the Trump administration has already started rolling back Obama's protections for transgender rights.

That's incorrect—Obama did not ban travel from those countries. He only made them ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program, which allows people to travel into the United States without a visa if they stay for less than 90 days. You could still come to the United States, but you would need a visa. Obama also did not include an exemption for non-Muslims. Trump's ban includes an exemption for non-Muslims, and affects Muslims even if they have already been vetted and given a visa. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2017/feb/03/donald-trumps-executive-order-muslim-ban/ Both of them have voted with Trump 100% of the time. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/ The Trump administration has not offered any evidence or any rational basis to believe that there is anything wrong with the current vetting system that we already have. Why the shutdown? What's the justification?