And violence against trans people has also increased this year: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/14/us-trans-trans...
Two years ago, many trans people were banned from serving in the US military. The ban was reversed earlier this year, but that's kind of the point: there are ongoing attacks against trans rights that are still happening right now and need attention. So that is why it gets the focus.
I welcome you to the real world: “trans panic defense”.
Can you please tell us which rights are being violated here exactly, I'm super curious. Most people just go into a stall, close the door, do their business and leave - who cares if they are trans or not. Do you peek into people's pants when you go into a public bathroom??
I'm a father who has been changing infants in public bathrooms for quite a while and I'm sorry, but that's a crazy argument. Absolutely completely 10000% bonkers.
>>(because they can sometimes be off-putting)
Your chances of running into a non-trans off-putting person in a public bathroom are several orders of magnitude higher. If I'm changing my baby and a drunk dude stumbles into the bathroom I'm feeling all tense, but only because they might be an actual threat, even accidentally(stumble and trip or something). But hey, it's a public bathroom - should we ban people that make me uncomfortable in public places?
Like, you're literally making the same argument as people saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed to display affection in public because it can make them uncomfortable - and why should you prioritise their emotions over your own?? Think of the children!!! /s
>> and having a trans person enter the room is disturbing enough
How. Please explain how is that disturbing. In fact how can you even tell someone is trans unless you
1) asked - and why would you in a public bathroom
2) looked them in the pants, and probably even that is not a good indicator.
Do you imagine that all trans people look like men in drag or something? Have you ever met a trans person outside of a South Park episode?
>>You might say, well whatever, she's transphobic
She is transfobic in your specific example, because she's immediately judging someone without any reason. Same as if she was uncomfortable with a black lady walking in - we would call that racist, and I would say her emotional state about black people is unfortunately worth exactly jack shit and we shouldn't care about it.
But maybe it's common for US States to have laws telling men they are barred from women's toilets and vice versa, and everyone accepts those?
To me that sounds preposterous, but in such a society I could see the discussion arise.
TL;DR: if you substitute "trans" for "blacks" (or any other offensive term for a protected minority), does it become discrimination? If yes: it already was discrimination.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...
Charter Amendment 29 is (was?) a popular measure concerning homelessness that polls at around 60% in Seattle, with only 20% opposed. The ACLU sued to remove it from the ballot on legal technicalities: they say that it conflicts with state law. The core thrust of their legal arguments had no civil liberties basis to them. But in their filing they stated their core opposition to the bill in this way:
> While Plaintiffs agree with some of CA 29’s purported goals, these goals cannot be advanced by the local initiative process. Electioneering and soundbites are neither an appropriate nor a legal method for addressing a complex and evolving regional crisis. Moreover, allowing homelessness policy to be established by local initiative would open a floodgate to local initiative and referenda on homelessness, which could be used to further criminalize homelessness or derail action to address affordable housing and homelessness. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21040873-20210811-1-...)
The ACLU sued to prevent the people from voting on a popular initiative to address the homeless crisis, because in their opinion the people might fall prey to "electioneering and soundbites" and vote for the wrong thing.
The lead council for the ACLU on this lawsuit, Knoll Lowney, uses local initiatives extensively in his own progressive advocacy. "Knoll has extensive experience in initiative law, and has authored dozens of statewide and local initiatives for the progressive community." https://www.smithandlowney.com/our-team
In a previous lawsuit where Lowney was in the opposite position -- defending a local initiative to keep it on the ballot -- he argued that "All doubts should be resolved in favor of letting the people vote”, and “any challenges the [opponent] wants to raise will be fully preserved for post-election review”. (Those quotes are found in this filing): https://sccinsight.com/2021/08/31/compassion-seattle-changes...
But that principle flipped this time, when he argued that the citizens of Seattle cannot be allowed to vote on a measure to address one of the region's most urgent crises.
So I don't find it particularly convincing when the ACLU claims they will stand up for voting rights. They will fight against your right to vote on measures they do not agree with.
> But in their filing they stated their core opposition to the bill in this way:
"Moreover, allowing homelessness policy to be established by local initiative would open a floodgate to local initiative and referenda on homelessness, which could be used to further criminalize homelessness or derail action to address affordable housing and homelessness."
> In a previous lawsuit where Lowney was in the opposite position -- defending a local initiative to keep it on the ballot -- he argued that "All doubts should be resolved in favor of letting the people vote”, and “any challenges the [opponent] wants to raise will be fully preserved for post-election review”.
A lawyer's job is making the strongest case they can for their client. And tactics aren't principles.
That is a very creative way of framing a charter amendment that proposed to build 2,000 units of emergency housing for the homeless who are currently sleeping on the streets and in parks.
If there was a strong civil liberties argument here, why didn't the ACLU make it? Why did the entire legal argument rest on a claim that the measure conflicts with other state and local laws? The lawsuit did not cite any instances where this charter amendment actually violates any civil liberty of the homeless.
The ACLU is part of a progressive establishment that believes that the homeless must be allowed to continue sleeping on the streets and in parks, even if shelter options are available. They believe that we must spend until the homeless are enticed to choose shelter, and if they do not choose it, the only option is to spend more. I am against sweeping homeless camps when no other option is available, but I do not think it is reasonable if parks are occupied by encampments of homeless who have decided not to take offers of shelter.
"Efforts to erase voting rights, trans rights, and abortion rights for millions of people are escalating across the country. We’re responding on all fronts — from courts to legislatures in all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico — but we need your help to win."
Has the mission statement changed? Why are trans people, who are on every front page daily as needing more rights, being dragged into this? Why is Snowden not mentioned?
Seems that organization has been successfully infiltrated as well.