Gov. Tony Evers "provided a crucial firewall against the worst abuses of the current right-wing agenda against LGBTQ people." The next governor needs to stand up against the GOP's anti-LGBTQ attacks.
"There was a narrative after Trump won the last election that trans people were somehow to blame for the Democrats losing, too — as though 1% of the population holds such power"
For real, the only minority group/1% of the population ruining things for everyone else is the rich
Being gay means important things, and tells of unique challenges in life. But if I go to bed of a night and depending on how my partner chooses to identify of a morning, my gay identity can be erased, how is supporting T supporting LGB?
Q is STILL and offensive term, and worse is used by people who ‘just want in’ without actually being LGB. Like the top tier of allyship.
I’ll let Emily handle the rest but the idea that Q is a slur is ahistorical. It was reclaimed during the 1990s by groups like Queer Nation, which wasn’t restricted to big coastal cities; members existed in Milwaukee too. You’re free to dislike the word and not identify as such, but meanings change.
Reclaimed? You hold people to the same standard when they say 'gay' to mean 'lame'? Meanings change, so it is fine? I bet you would argue that while this is true, historical sensitivities should be honoured when considering re-purposing. There is a word beginning with 'N' that some white people use to mean chosen family, just as black counterparts use - is that acceptable?
I also don't like how the majority use it. For many, it is not an LGB classification, it is essentially a top tier allyship grade for straight people.
Oof where to start? It breaks my heart that there are still gay and lesbian people who think--wrongly--that trans people aren't their kin in this fight, or that trans identity is somehow not real or, in your case, has the ability to invalidate your own identity. That's utterly absurd, to be honest. A person coming out as trans does not and cannot "erase" the sexuality of the partner. I've seen that situation lead to breakups and I've seen it lead to the cis partner simply realizing that their sexuality is more fluid than they'd realized. In either case, it was up to that partner, not the trans person, to decide. It's such a weird and frankly mean-spirited accusation to even make in your argument.
Also, trans people can (and often are) be gay or lesbian or bi themselves, so your argument further falls apart.
Trans folks have always been at the very forefront of fighting LGBTQ rights. We've also been on the receiving end of some of the very worst attacks. It only serves the cause of cis-heteronormativity and patriarchy to allow a wedge to be driven between cis gays and lesbians and trans folks. I won't stand for it. I hope you come around to the importance of solidarity, too.
If sexual identity is objective (attracted to the same gender), but gender identity is subjective (I can be in any category that I want to), you remove the meaning of the former because it relies on the latter.
I am not on a team.
This is a lumping together for political (small p) power, not real meaning.
That a trans person wants to also identify as L or G means nothing if the gender relies on self identification of the partner - it would mean everyone was essentially Bi.
If Jaguar can identify it's cars as Fords, and Ford's can identify its cars as Jaguars, then I can't say I only like Jaguars. That doesn't mean I hate Fords, but highlights the undermining of meaning in this case.
And this takes me back - I believe that being LGB has meaning. T undermines that meaning.
Let's cut to the chase: Do you believe that people deserve basic human rights and respect, regardless of sexual or gender identity or gender presentation, or do you not?
I am a lawyer: what basic human right is anyone excluded from?
Equal rights, by definition, apply universally; they aren’t group-specific. If you start creating rights or privileges that exist only for a particular category of people, even if it’s framed as “protection,” it’s no longer true equality under the classical concept of rights.
So when a slogan like “Trans rights are human rights” is used to demand protections or accommodations that apply only to trans people, it is shifting from equality to group-specific claims. That’s why, from a strict legal or philosophical perspective, it’s not simply reinforcing equal rights, it’s asserting extra or extraordinary rights for a specific group.
In other words: universal rights protect everyone equally; group-specific rights inherently differentiate between people.
You're a lawyer, as you say, so I expect you to know the important and very relevant difference between "equality" and "equity." If not, I strongly suggest you look it up and then follow that with some deep reading and listening about the systemic discrimination experienced specifically by trans and gender non-conforming people. And any number of classes of folks who've been excluded/targeted by the white supremacist patriarchal culture that we live in. Then come back and talk to me about how everyone is afforded the same rights as everyone else, either in letter of law or reality.
Also worth noting, even if it's just for other people reading, that the rights and protections that trans people are demanding absolutely have ramifications and impact on cis people, too. The right to self-determination, medical privacy, and bodily autonomy should be applied to everyone. Once you start carving out exceptions, as these anti-trans laws do, the negative impacts also hit cis people. We've already seen this play out in multiple cases. Not to mention the tie in to the efforts to take away the right to an abortion, i.e. make medical decisions for ourselves and not be forced into anything by the government. If you can't see the intersections, you're willfully not looking.
"There was a narrative after Trump won the last election that trans people were somehow to blame for the Democrats losing, too — as though 1% of the population holds such power"
For real, the only minority group/1% of the population ruining things for everyone else is the rich
Thank you for this!
Defends LGB people or TQ+?
Being gay means important things, and tells of unique challenges in life. But if I go to bed of a night and depending on how my partner chooses to identify of a morning, my gay identity can be erased, how is supporting T supporting LGB?
Q is STILL and offensive term, and worse is used by people who ‘just want in’ without actually being LGB. Like the top tier of allyship.
I’ll let Emily handle the rest but the idea that Q is a slur is ahistorical. It was reclaimed during the 1990s by groups like Queer Nation, which wasn’t restricted to big coastal cities; members existed in Milwaukee too. You’re free to dislike the word and not identify as such, but meanings change.
Reclaimed? You hold people to the same standard when they say 'gay' to mean 'lame'? Meanings change, so it is fine? I bet you would argue that while this is true, historical sensitivities should be honoured when considering re-purposing. There is a word beginning with 'N' that some white people use to mean chosen family, just as black counterparts use - is that acceptable?
I also don't like how the majority use it. For many, it is not an LGB classification, it is essentially a top tier allyship grade for straight people.
This story is about the United States and not wherever you’re from, so our use of words and their history is different.
Oof where to start? It breaks my heart that there are still gay and lesbian people who think--wrongly--that trans people aren't their kin in this fight, or that trans identity is somehow not real or, in your case, has the ability to invalidate your own identity. That's utterly absurd, to be honest. A person coming out as trans does not and cannot "erase" the sexuality of the partner. I've seen that situation lead to breakups and I've seen it lead to the cis partner simply realizing that their sexuality is more fluid than they'd realized. In either case, it was up to that partner, not the trans person, to decide. It's such a weird and frankly mean-spirited accusation to even make in your argument.
Also, trans people can (and often are) be gay or lesbian or bi themselves, so your argument further falls apart.
Trans folks have always been at the very forefront of fighting LGBTQ rights. We've also been on the receiving end of some of the very worst attacks. It only serves the cause of cis-heteronormativity and patriarchy to allow a wedge to be driven between cis gays and lesbians and trans folks. I won't stand for it. I hope you come around to the importance of solidarity, too.
If sexual identity is objective (attracted to the same gender), but gender identity is subjective (I can be in any category that I want to), you remove the meaning of the former because it relies on the latter.
I am not on a team.
This is a lumping together for political (small p) power, not real meaning.
That a trans person wants to also identify as L or G means nothing if the gender relies on self identification of the partner - it would mean everyone was essentially Bi.
If Jaguar can identify it's cars as Fords, and Ford's can identify its cars as Jaguars, then I can't say I only like Jaguars. That doesn't mean I hate Fords, but highlights the undermining of meaning in this case.
And this takes me back - I believe that being LGB has meaning. T undermines that meaning.
Let's cut to the chase: Do you believe that people deserve basic human rights and respect, regardless of sexual or gender identity or gender presentation, or do you not?
I am a lawyer: what basic human right is anyone excluded from?
Equal rights, by definition, apply universally; they aren’t group-specific. If you start creating rights or privileges that exist only for a particular category of people, even if it’s framed as “protection,” it’s no longer true equality under the classical concept of rights.
So when a slogan like “Trans rights are human rights” is used to demand protections or accommodations that apply only to trans people, it is shifting from equality to group-specific claims. That’s why, from a strict legal or philosophical perspective, it’s not simply reinforcing equal rights, it’s asserting extra or extraordinary rights for a specific group.
In other words: universal rights protect everyone equally; group-specific rights inherently differentiate between people.
You're a lawyer, as you say, so I expect you to know the important and very relevant difference between "equality" and "equity." If not, I strongly suggest you look it up and then follow that with some deep reading and listening about the systemic discrimination experienced specifically by trans and gender non-conforming people. And any number of classes of folks who've been excluded/targeted by the white supremacist patriarchal culture that we live in. Then come back and talk to me about how everyone is afforded the same rights as everyone else, either in letter of law or reality.
Also worth noting, even if it's just for other people reading, that the rights and protections that trans people are demanding absolutely have ramifications and impact on cis people, too. The right to self-determination, medical privacy, and bodily autonomy should be applied to everyone. Once you start carving out exceptions, as these anti-trans laws do, the negative impacts also hit cis people. We've already seen this play out in multiple cases. Not to mention the tie in to the efforts to take away the right to an abortion, i.e. make medical decisions for ourselves and not be forced into anything by the government. If you can't see the intersections, you're willfully not looking.
This completely erases bisexual and pansexual people says this queer woman.
I really wish Bill Penzey could be drafted. He’s certainly got name recognition and I resonate with him politics
Ben Wikler is a politician I respect. Does anyone know his stance on LGBTQ+ issues?
Do we know what Rodriquez or other Dem candidates’ position on LGBTQ rights is?