|
It's a compromise that still gives space to the worst bigots and allows trans people to be frozen out in sports at a professional level by excluding them from college and highschool play. The American way, we won't kill you, just push you into a socio-economic class and prevent you from avenues to success until that kills you. No one's fault but your own then.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
Oh yay, Biden is pretended to take a "nuanced' approach and it's just the same poo poo wrapped up in a blue bow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:DeSantis and his political team are inexplicably modeling their 2024 campaign strategy after... Rudy Giuliani's 2008 Presidential campaign. This is just "I'm actually running in 2028, but getting my name out there now"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Rather then rehash primary chat again, how about this, the Biden admin has seen how far red states have gone in criminalizing trans lives, and decided, hey maybe they had some good ides when they were pushing this last year before settling on kill all those groomer freaks: I loving hate all of these people beyond what words can describe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 23:15
|
|
|
Compromise with any Republicans, anywhere by any means, sucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
Reminds me of the early 2000s when there was no shortage of Dems who said "marriage is between one man and one woman" because it was easier than taking a stand for a marginalized group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
I love how the position is "you are ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOWED to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. unless you want to win, then go hog wild" Just perfectly calibrated to enrage both sides
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
That's because it's bad faith outrage farming. https://twitter.com/Krishan_A_Patel/status/1644084493446451200
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:That's because it's bad faith outrage farming. quote:Weighing in on the highly charged debate about transgender athletes and school sports, the Biden administration’s proposal would make “categorically” banning all transgender students from teams that are consistent with their gender identities a violation of Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal funding. quote:It would be up to schools to navigate how, exactly, the restrictions would be applied. The Education Department advised that schools would have to assess the age of students, the level of the competition, as well as the nature of the sport itself. The impact may be different, for example, in track versus badminton. still seems lovely 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:That's because it's bad faith outrage farming. I cannot possibly understand how this person came to this conclusion when the bill will obviously be selectively applied according to the whims of the school. If you think that red state schools aren't going to say "all Trans women are banned because of biological differences" then you're absolutely wrong. At best they will wait til the kids are pubescent and they can scream "but bone mass"! It's not equality if it's "you're equal butttt not if you're running track"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
It's a craven dogshit triangulation, and I don't think it will be the last here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
Here's the actual notice of proposed rulemaking. It's 116 pages and I don't have time to parse all of it in detail, but in short, this looks like the administration is obligated by current sex-discrimination permissiveness in legislation to theoretically offer the possibility of discrimination against trans athletes, and they're attempting to use the sex discrimination standards under Title IX and more recent trans-friendly caselaw to create a standard for discrimination that no one will be able to meet. A couple elements: Some interesting context on last-minute actions by the Trump administration in the area: quote:In the months immediately following the Supreme Court’s June 2020 decision in Bostock, 140 S. Ct. 1731, OCR made several statements on Bostock’s application to Title IX. For instance, on August 31, 2020, OCR issued a revised Letter of Impending Enforcement Action in its investigation of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) and six school districts. OCR Case No. 01-19-4025, Conn. Interscholastic Athletic Conf. et al. (Aug. 31, 2020) (revised letter of impending enforcement action) (archived and marked not for reliance in February 2021) (Revised CIAC Letter), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/01194025-a2.pdf. The letter stated that OCR was providing an update in light of Bostock and took the position that when a recipient provides “separate teams for members of each sex” under 34 CFR 106.41(b), “the recipient must separate those teams on the basis of biological sex” and not on the basis of gender identity. Revised CIAC Letter at 36. The letter departed from OCR’s typical practice concerning enforcement letters by stating that it “constitutes a formal statement of OCR’s interpretation of Title IX and its implementing regulations and should be relied upon, cited, and construed as such.” Id. at 49. The prior Biden administration rulemaking: quote:The Department’s July 2022 NPRM proposed amendments to the Department’s Title IX regulations would clarify, among other things, that Title IX prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and sex characteristics in federally funded education programs and activities. See 87 FR 41571. In addition, the proposed amendments would clarify that (a) in the limited circumstances in which Title IX or the Department’s Title IX regulations permit different treatment or separation on the basis of sex, a recipient must not carry out such different treatment or separation in a manner that discriminates on the basis of sex by subjecting a person to more than de minimis harm, unless otherwise permitted by Title IX or the Department’s Title IX regulations; and (b) a policy or practice that prevents a person from participating in an education program or activity consistent with their gender identity subjects a person to more than de minimis harm on the basis of sex. Id. at 41534-37. The July 2022 NPRM also recognized that despite Title IX’s general prohibition on sex discrimination against an individual, there are circumscribed situations, including with respect to sex-related eligibility criteria for male or female teams, in which Title IX or its regulations may permit a recipient to separate students on the basis of sex, even when doing so may cause some students more than de minimis harm. Id. at 41537. The July 2022 NPRM did not propose any changes to the Department’s Title IX regulation governing athletics, however, instead reserving that issue for this Athletics NPRM. Id. The actual justification for needing to allow a basis for applying sex-discriminatory criteria instead of gender identity distinctions seems to cite to section 844 of the Education Amendments of 1974 in several places- I'd need to look into it further. The specific standards applicable to such criteria are that "those criteria, for each sport, level of competition, and grade or education level, would have to be substantially related to the achievement of an important educational objective and minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied." The details of the burdens such criteria would have to meet start on page 45 (46 in the file). I don't have time to dig through the entire 30 or so pages, but it appears they are attempting to make the standard as impossible to meet as possible, e.g.: quote:Therefore, criteria that assume all transgender girls and women possess an unfair physical advantage over cisgender girls and women in every sport, level of competition, and grade or education level would rest on a generalization that would not comply with the Department’s proposed regulation. quote:If a school can achieve its objective using means that would not limit or deny a student’s participation consistent with their gender identity, its use of sex-related criteria may be pretextual rather than substantially related to achievement of that important educational objective. The NPRM also asserts that it's proobably impossible to satisfy these burdens in any athletics context at least through middle school, and states that any sex discriminatory criteria would basically have to be justified from scratch for the sport, age, and level of competition. It also implies that it would be impossible to satisfy in team sports where athletes play different roles. On the harm minimization standard, they are also setting it up so there's no way to effectively drive an athlete out of a sport, which goes further than the standard sex-discriminatory "oh, we can't have a girl wrestler, and there's no female wrestling team, oh well, play another sport": quote:...But when sex-related criteria do limit or deny a student’s eligibility to participate on a male or female athletic team consistent with their gender identity, the student is subjected to harms based on sex that are distinct from the harms otherwise permitted under the Department’s longstanding athletics regulation (e.g., a girl who is not selected for the girls’ soccer team based on her athletic skills or a boy who is not eligible to play on the girls’ volleyball team when the recipient does not offer a boys’ or coeducational volleyball team). It also treats any potential disclosure of confidential information or privacy invasion as a harm under the harm analysis: quote:For example, a recipient might adopt sex-related criteria that require documentation of student-athletes’ gender identity based on its interest in providing, consistent with Title IX, equal athletic opportunity on male and female Notably, on my brief read the NPRM provides zero examples of scenarios where a title IX institution could actually get away with sex-discriminatory practices cutting against gender identity. It's entirely a list of different ways that trans-discriminatory policies wouldn't be permitted under the regulation. This is an NPRM, so there's a comment opportunity. Everyone can comment on the rule in any way, but the NPRM asks for comment on specific issues: quote:The Department therefore specifically invites further public comment on: The comment docket's not active yet, but it's going to be on regulations.gov under ED-2022-OCR-0143 for 30 days if folks want to comment. I'd note that having a press release before federal register publication isn't usually normal for an agency, so they're probably trying to draw attention and comment on this. Bear in mind that the Dept of Ed will have to respond to any relevant "substantive" comment in any final rule. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Apr 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:02
|
|
|
I don’t think it’s a surprise that democrats have limited and carefully triangulated concern for the rights of others. Have we forgotten the story of gay marriage already? Or don’t ask/don’t tell? Their purpose has been maintenance of a status quo that many of them genuinely believe is the best possible outcome for the United States.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:08
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:He’s so going to be our president. lol. poo poo, he won't even recuse himself if any of those people who paid for that poo poo wind up in his court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:If you're looking for more details, most of the info seems to be coming from local Florida outlet Pensacola News Journal: https://www.pnj.com/story/news/crim...ns/70088634007/ Yea, that sounds about right, thanks for posting this link. So much for the whole “my kid was kidnapped for domestic terrorism for sharing a meme about lazy cops” story 
Kalit fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Apr 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:11
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:I don’t think it’s a surprise that democrats have limited and carefully triangulated concern for the rights of others. Have we forgotten the story of gay marriage already? Or don’t ask/don’t tell? Their purpose has been maintenance of a status quo that many of them genuinely believe is the best possible outcome for the United States. DADT was an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The IRS announced that, with the $80 billion in new funding they received from the IRA, they will be overhauling the entire agency. Not according to the RWM I monitor. They tell me that the IRS is loading up on auditors to go after people making $30,000 a year who gently caress up over $20 in jail and take their Seriously though I hope the customer service thing works because god drat, when I ran into some trouble after my divorce, getting anyone on the phone or even corresponding by mail was nigh impossible. Not kidding that I spent 3.5 hours on the phone once trying to straighten poo poo out where it just laid there on my coffee table on speaker. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Apr 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Rather then rehash primary chat again, how about this, the Biden admin has seen how far red states have gone in criminalizing trans lives, and decided, hey maybe they had some good ides when they were pushing this last year before settling on kill all those groomer freaks: Seems that Ron Klain leaving made Biden shift much further right than before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:DADT was an improvement. A compromise with what, exactly? And for what purpose?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Rather then rehash primary chat again, how about this, the Biden admin has seen how far red states have gone in criminalizing trans lives, and decided, hey maybe they had some good ides when they were pushing this last year before settling on kill all those groomer freaks: Again, you're listening to the wrong news. I have it on good authority that Biden is a far left radical socialist implementing a woke agenda in his quest to destroy America and that "we won't even have a country left" if he wins the next election. Seems I've heard this rhetoric somewhere before (Kerry, Obama, Hillary). Every candidate is the most radical left wing socialist who ever socialismed, no matter how centrist or milquetoast their voting record is or their policies are. If the Democrats ran Joe Manchin or Sinema, we'd hear about how they "voted with Obama/Biden 98% of the time" as proof of how far left they are. I don't know if the right wing thinks that people like me simply adore Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton or if it's just a cheap way to frame the narrative but every time I get accused of being a left wing radical for voting Democrat I almost have to laugh. I vote for democrats because the alternative are literally fascists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:39
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:DADT was an improvement. While you’re not 100% wrong with this statement, there was no reason why it couldn’t have been “queer people are allowed to serve in the military”. It didn’t even need legislative support. Hell, I was a child when it was implemented and I still knew it was a bullshit policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Again, you're listening to the wrong news. I have it on good authority that Biden is a far left radical socialist implementing a woke agenda in his quest to destroy America and that "we won't even have a country left" if he wins the next election. Seems I've heard this rhetoric somewhere before (Kerry, Obama, Hillary). Every candidate is the most radical left wing socialist who ever socialismed, no matter how centrist or milquetoast their voting record is or their policies are. Reminds me of that joke about the old jewish man who reads der sturmer every day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:DADT was an improvement. I swear there is no knowledge of queer history. Some things were just straight up reactionary dogshit like DOMA, but DADT was better than it was before because "vibes" was absolutely a reason to fire people from the military before hand. DADT meant you couldn't investigate people without evidence. People rag on celebrity photo ops with AIDS patients, but that absolutely did reduce HIV/AIDS stigma and reduce disinformation that you could catch HIV/AIDS from just touching someone with the disease. Just because it's not 100% good, doesn't mean it didn't improve people's lives, sometimes substantially. EDIT: I am kinda cheered by the fact that these new guidelines do add a gently caress ton of hoops you have to jump though to the point it's almost impossible instead of just being able to do blanket bans on trans people in sports from the get-go. Yes, I did say the absolute oppisate thing a few posts ago but being informed you were wrong is good. Twincityhacker fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Apr 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:46
|
|
|
Again, link to the actual notice of proposed rulemaking, quotes, breakdown, summary, history, information about where and when to comment on it, right here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:48
|
|
|
Kalit posted:While you’re not 100% wrong Sorry, but in what way are they any percent wrong?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:53
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:A compromise with what, exactly? And for what purpose? A compromise with actual witch hunts that were meant to literally investigate queers through snitching and busts. DADT is similar to the 3/5th's compromise in that both are remembered as the actual evil, instead of the significant easing of the evil. Countless of queer lives were shattered under DADT, and that evil will never be repaid fully. But that can't be used to blind from what it was before that. DADT gave significant relief to countless queer servicemembers by ceasing the witch hunts, and was a step to a pragmatically better direction. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Apr 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 00:53
|
|
|
Kalit posted:While you’re not 100% wrong with this statement, there was no reason why it couldn’t have been “queer people are allowed to serve in the military”. It didn’t even need legislative support. Hell, I was a child when it was implemented and I still knew it was a bullshit policy. Have you considered that as a child you didn't actually have the best grasp of what was going on? Bill Clinton campaigned on "“queer people are allowed to serve in the military” but there was bipartisan support for a total ban being pushed by the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They didn't cut it down to DADT for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:DADT gave significant relief to countless queer servicemembers by ceasing the witch hunts, and was a step to a pragmatically better direction. I’m not sure people get how homophobic some branches were. When my grandfather was at Paris Island (39) during his marine boot camp, they found two men having sex. They were beaten and driven off the base naked and out into the swamps. The Vietnam era was pretty godawful too. The marines were the worst. It wasn’t something that could merely end a career. There were points where one might get murdered for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 01:11
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:DADT is similar to the 3/5th's compromise in that both are remembered as the actual evil, instead of the significant easing of the evil. Err... in what way was the 3/5ths compromise an "easing" of the evil? It literally made things worse than the starting and default position (not counting them), there was no previous worse condition where they were completely counted for it to have eased them from, it was literally just "slavers get more votes in Congress or we'll destroy the nascent union". It was an evil that could have been worse, sure. It was possibly necessary to allow it to achieve other good things. But it was a move in the evil direction nonetheless. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Apr 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Sorry, but in what way are they any percent wrong? I can rephrase: “While you’re technically correct, DADT was still a very homophobic policy that could have just not existed” 7c Nickel posted:Have you considered that as a child you didn't actually have the best grasp of what was going on? Bill Clinton campaigned on "“queer people are allowed to serve in the military” but there was bipartisan support for a total ban being pushed by the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They didn't cut it down to DADT for no reason. You should read up more on Clinton’s stances before tooting his horn too much: https://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/clinton-documents-gays-in-the-military-111784 quote:Clinton heard strong disagreement from Powell and the other chiefs. Marine Commandant Gen. Carl Mundy may have been the most strident opponent of allowing gays to serve openly. Quoting someone involved in a Queer Nation parade, Mundy said people associated with “gay pride” are licentious and unconstrained by law or morality. Mundy, who died earlier this year, also suggested that announcing “I’m gay” was the “same as I’m KKK, Nazi, rapist,” the notes show. quote:Gore added that he thought Mundy was “borderline in his presentation,” especially when he compared gays to Nazis. Kalit fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Apr 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 01:20
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:It's a craven dogshit triangulation, and I don't think it will be the last here. This has been the Democrats' strategy since Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 01:22
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:DADT was an improvement. DADT was very technically an improvement, yes. But it was also a half measure that made things worse in a lot of ways. It put a legal burden on gay servicemembers to stay in the closet. And from an anti-imperialist standpoint, it shoveled more bodies into the GWOT-era war machine. Jim Crow was technically an improvement over chattel slavery, but i dont think youll find anyone celebrating it as such.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 01:24
|
|
|
DADT was a very good improvement but a bad solution. I don't know enough about the history to really say if Clinton was passing it as a solution or if he was teeing things up for later court cases but I think that's where the two views lie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
Well, Tennessee did it. Expelled those democratic lawmakers from the legislature for protesting against gun violence. https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/06/us/tennessee-democrats-office-removal-vote/index.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 01:49
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Well, Tennessee did it. Expelled those democratic lawmakers from the legislature for protesting against gun violence. Not all of them. https://twitter.com/MichaelSteele/status/1644134658253152258?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 02:00
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:A compromise with what, exactly? And for what purpose? Clinton's initial plan to allow gay people to serve openly got pushback so fast and so hard that Congress was going to push through a bipartisan bill enshrining 1980s "root out the gays" policies into federal law. The folk history about how Clinton single-handedly made the Democrats a right-wing party conveniently overlooks how it was still packed with straight-up conservatives in those days, and they were happy to cross the aisle to show that they weren't beholden to some big government hippie liberal in the White House. Even before a lot of them got replaced with straight-up Republicans in 1994. Like the Blue Dogs in 2010, but still straight-up Dixiecrat era types.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 02:01
|
|
|
DeKalb county has issued a stop work order on Cop City. Apparently, inspectors found that the silt fence and other erosion control measures have failed, violating the land development permit. https://twitter.com/atlanta_press/status/1644137859589328896?s=20 https://twitter.com/atlanta_press/status/1644138544632299521?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 02:01
|
|
|
Silly Burrito posted:Not all of them. Wow, that's even worse. Plus you get Michael Steele, former head of the GOP calling them out on this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 02:01
|
|
|
Silly Burrito posted:Not all of them. I struggle to think of how you could more shame yourself as an institution or bring down a bigger shitstorm of negative attention from all directions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
Name Change posted:I struggle to think of how you could more shame yourself as an institution or bring down a bigger shitstorm of negative attention from all directions. The mistake you made is having the believe that they have shame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 02:07
|
|