|
The Sean posted:Could you explain what he has done to defend trans persons, let alone as "a priority"? Note that I don't work on lgbtq issues and I don't have a particular stance on how much of a priority they are for the Biden admin, but the link you provided absolutely shows action. Taking the first three things- 1. Rule finalized which restores anti-discrimination protections in federally funded health care. That's pretty clear "doing something" 2. Remarks at a dinner- depends on how much you consider raising awareness and trying to visibly show acceptance to a minority community is doing something. 3. Proposed rule for safety requirements and barring conversion therapy in foster homes that lbtq youth are placed in. Notice of proposed rulemaking is again clearly "doing something".
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
The Sean posted:For 1 To be clear, I was only referencing the link in the quoted post which had a timeline from the HRC of things the Biden admin did. Nothing I was posting about was executive orders, they're administrative rulemaking and different actions from what you're posting now, which I guess shows that Biden's doing even more stuff-- 1. The finalized rule from the link is https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-00091.pdf and 3. HCR didn't provide a link, but looking through the Fed Register, I'm pretty sure it's this one: https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...s-iv-e-and-iv-b Both of which are concrete actions that legitimate help lgbt people. as far as 2. I'm ambivalent about it myself, but I don't think it should be dismissed as merely performative since I think that sort of performative work shows normies that lgbt people aren't demons from the pit of hell. As far as the EOs go, for the first one-- it's a little more complicated. Bostock v. Clayton does provide the legal background for protection of lgbt+ minorities, but that EO is what executes it. For the other one, I'll note that language like "shall consider whether to issue guidance" isn't a suggestion, it's an order. Shall consider means HHS is legally required to factually determine whether issuing that guidance will meet the policy goals of that section of the EO and lay out their reasoning for why it would or would not. Presumably it does (it's hard to see how it wouldn't) so this is essentially ordering HHS to make rules barring the use of "conversion therapy" in federally funded programs. With regards to comparison to weapons sales, Biden is exercising his power more or less to the same extent. But none of these things are suggestions, these are legal orders which require specific concrete actions to be taken. Edit to add: My point here isn't that any given person should vote for or against Biden. Everybody has different priorities and weighs different policies differently. My point is that when you are weighing policies, you should do so correctly. Saying that Biden is offering suggestions and empty performances when it comes to something you support and pulling all the stops for things you oppose might make the decision feel easier, but that's not accurate read of what his administration is doing. If you look at these actions as the concrete acts they are and say it still doesn't outweigh Biden's policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians (or other issues) and that voting for him is still a bridge too far, that's fine. I may not agree with your assessment, but I don't think it's a wild position to hold. But! it's important to understand that you are making a tradeoff of very real policies and acts in how the government operates that almost certainly have saved lives not just empty platitudes; and understand that those policies and acts will come to an end under Trump. It's the same tradeoff that everyone makes by engaging politically. Minimizing good things that Biden does is just tricking yourself into believing that you're making the morally pure decision, but there isn't one. Dopilsya fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Mar 9, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2024 15:35
|
|