Tuesday, June 30, 2020

Looking For A Job?

If you’re trans you know how hard it is to get and keep a job.
Crain's Detroit Business
By Annalise Frank
June 28, 2020

  • Transgender visibility, understanding has increased in recent years, but trans people are still mistreated at work
  • Unemployment rate for trans people in Michigan was 19 percent in 2015 compared to overall rate of 5.4 percent
  • June 15 Supreme Court decision now protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination based on sex

The Black native Detroiter, 54, has faced discrimination on the job many times over. She is a cosmetologist, singer-songwriter, actress and model, among other pursuits.

But transgender individuals, especially those who are Black and other people of color, still get mistreated in the workplace, from misuse of pronouns to firing and violence.

More than a quarter of Michiganders who identify as transgender have been fired, denied a promotion or not been hired due to their status. That's according to the U.S. Transgender Survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality in 2015 — the most recent year available.
"There is a high tolerance and a high mentality for disrespect," said Jeynce Poindexter, transgender advocate at Equality Michigan and founding board member of the Trans Sistas of Color Project. "For misgendering, for outing ... A situation where someone may (not be visibly transgender) and going to work and someone goes and tells the superior, and they're fired. We have to have a level of respect so that we even can connect. If you don't honor me as a person, you're not going to hear me."
Trying to get your foot in the door is almost impossible for many trans people, especially if you are Black or a member of another minority.

When you are looking for a job there are so many reasons for them not to hire you that are legal reasons, unless they come out and say to your face… “We don’t hire trans people” all they have to do is say didn’t hire you because; A. We had better candidates, B. You were not a good fit for the company, C. Both of the above. It is so hard to prove otherwise.
Transphobia, a dearth of legal protections and lack of trust in the law has meant low public reporting of harassment or discrimination in the workplace for transgender individuals.

"A thing to keep in mind is it's certainly an undercount, because a lot of people still don't realize they have these remedies available," Kaplan said.
In Michigan, 43 LGBTQ-related charges were filed in fiscal 2019, or 1.8 percent of total equal employment opportunity charges, according to commission spokeswoman Kimberly Smith-Brown.
In Connecticut last year the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) reported that there were 21 cases of employment gender identity bias complaints filed.

It is easier prove discrimination when you have a job than when you are trying to find a job and that is especially true if you had a number of performance reviews under your belt. My advice if you think that they are out to get you is keep a logbook because if it every goes to court you will need to prove the discrimination. You just can’t say… “I was discriminated against!” You will need to say, “On June 30 I boxed 200 packages and I was told that I wasn’t working fast enough but I boxed the most that day, Joe and Jane only boxed a 100 boxes each.”

You need facts!

Jillian Weiss an employment discrimination lawyer wrote about the Supreme Court ruling was interviewed Queersplaining about the case and had this to say...
Callie: [00:06:22] I know you’ve been, picking apart the, the decisions.

So what, talk to me about what the decision specifically says. Cause we had talked about a couple of different ways. It could go like on a spectrum of like good and bad. And so kind of talk to me about where the decision actually falls on that spectrum and like what, what it exactly it says.

Jillian: [00:06:39] Well, I think it falls on the very good part of the spectrum.

What it basically says is that when you discriminate against people because of being gay or transgender, you are discriminating against them based on sex. And it’s very interesting because a number of courts had previously said that sex stereotyping is not permitted. And so therefore, if you discriminated against a transgender person, you are stereotyping their sex.

You’re saying a man. Shouldn’t look this way or women shouldn’t look this way or what I consider a man or a woman shouldn’t look this way. And a lot of people had concerns about that because it’s so am I being judged as a, you think I’m a man, so you’re, therefore you’re judging me based on me being what you think I should.
And there’s not a lot of courts that have ruled in that particular way. The sixth circuit did do it in this case. the Stevens case. But, you know, what the Supreme court was going to do with all that was really quite a different ball game. And it’s very interesting that justice Gorsuch, who is not only what we might call a textualist, but also practically a literalist.

It’s very interesting what he did with this decision. And so it, it really inline with that type of ruling where we’re saying it’s per se sex discrimination to discriminate based on being trans or gay. It’s not a form of stereotyping. It’s not, you know, something like it, it is just straight on full, you know, full speed ahead.
Callie: [00:08:51] Yeah. And, and what are the implications of that? 

Jillian: [00:08:54] Well, so my mind, and you’re currently to justice Alito who was highly disturbed by this ruling. It means in every statute where it says, sex it now means that you cannot take into consideration, whether someone is gay or transgender.
So we have the protections but like every other type of discrimination it is very hard to prove in court.

Monday, June 29, 2020

An Umbrella Or A Triangle

Yesterday was the anniversary of Stonewall lets look at what divides us… race, gender, orientation, and socioeconomic status?

Many people see the LGBTQ as homogeneous but others see it as silos, which version is true? 

Sadly, I see it is the fractional one, I see a divide with the rich white gay male on top and the Black trans person on the bottom. At Stonewall it was as Sylvia Rivera described the Stonewall Inn as “a white male bar for middle-class males to pick up young boys of different races” but if you look at the first Pride march it was most white affluent men and women marching.

And I believe this is true of the trans community. When I first came out back in 2000 the word “Transgender” was an umbrella term that included anyone who crossed the gender norm but there are those who are trying to morph it into meaning only those who are on the transition track and to others it means only post-ops. They want to build silos and keep everyone out, they see a hierarchy with them on top looking down on inferiors drag queens, crossdressers, and non-binary.

There are those who only see those who can integrate into society and are post-op as the only “true” trans person, all the others are just “men in dresses.”

Will we exclude those who cannot afford electrolysis. Will we exclude those who cannot take hormones because they are too expensive or have a medical condition that prevents from taking them. Where do we draw the line?

Look at the Connecticut law, it says simply…
(21) "Gender identity or expression" means a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth, which gender-related identity can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, part of a person's core identity or not being asserted for an improper purpose.
Do you see anything that says that you need medical intervention or surgery. It doesn’t say that you need surgery or taking hormones or that it doesn’t apply to crossdressers or drag queens/kings are exempt them from the law… no it is inclusive. It even covers someone who is thought to be trans by someone else.

Let us be inclusive, not exclusive.

How do we determine who’s trans? Are we going to have a tribunal to determine who is really a trans person are we going to have to go before a tribunal for a verdict? “We find that Jane Doe has met all the requirements to be called “Trans” and cast aside all those who do not meet the standards?

Let us take a lesson from the Black Lives Matter movement and end the pecking order and the lateral discrimination.

United we stand,  divided we fall. 

Sunday, June 28, 2020

In The Middle Of The Worst Pandemic Since 1918…

...Trump wants to take away our health insurance!

How cruel can a person be?
US Congress Should Pass the Equality Act
Human Rights Watch
By Ryan Thoreson
June 25, 2020

The Trump administration is moving ahead with a rule that would write transgender people out of sex discrimination protections in health care. While advocates fight the rule in court, transgender people will continue to face discriminatory treatment and refusals of care.

This comes despite a United States Supreme Court ruling last week that affirmed employment protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, reasoning that gender identity discrimination is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by law.
The rollback of healthcare protections is the latest in a long string of Trump administration attacks on transgender people.

The administration’s cruel assault on transgender rights shows no signs of letting up. Just after the healthcare regulation was finalized, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development said it would propose a rule permitting single-sex homeless shelters to turn away transgender people.
On the heels of the Supreme Court ruling, the Trump administration is ignoring the court ruling and plunging ahead to strip us of health insurance protection of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) Section 1557. In addition, Trump wants to scrap the whole ACA forcing 20 million people to lose their health insurance.
Houston Chronicle
By Dr. Aliza Norwood 
June 26, 2020

Riah Milton and Dominique “Rem’mie” Fells, both black trans women, were murdered earlier this month. Their deaths appear to be part of an epidemic of hate crimes against transgender people, particularly trans women of color. Yet that same week, against the backdrop of Black Lives Matter protests, a global pandemic and Pride month, the Trump administration issued a rule to further imperil transgender people by stripping them of their right to seek health care without discrimination.

The rule, finalized on June 12 by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights, rewrites part of the Affordable Care Act by interpreting “sex” discrimination to apply only to biological sex, thus allowing health care providers and insurance companies to refuse care or coverage to patients merely because they are transgender. Although the Supreme Court’s recent groundbreaking ruling that employers cannot fire individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity sets an important precedent, it doesn’t keep the HHS rule from taking effect.
As the global pandemic has taught us, our nation is only as healthy as its most vulnerable citizens. The HHS rule is medically unsound and will harm individual and public health. We cannot continue to allow the seeds of transphobia that kill so many people to be buried in our medical system.
This is the most cold-hearted administration ever, they are devoid of any empathy.

Another death by the hands of correctional officers…
Juvenile Justice Information Exchange
By Parker E. Quinlan 
June 27, 2020

NEW YORK — The New York City Department of Corrections will discipline 17 officers for their conduct surrounding the death of 27-year-old Layleen Polanco, a transgender Rikers Island inmate being housed in solitary confinement.

The decision comes after the New York City Board of Corrections (BOC) released a scathing 16-page report that documents how both DOC and Correctional Health Services (CHS), which administers medical aid to inmates, ignored signs that Polanco was not medically fit for solitary confinement.

Polanco, who had schizophrenia and frequent epileptic seizures, died in her cell in June 2019. She had been arrested for allegedly attempting to bite a taxi driver and was being held on $500 bail. She was unattended for nearly two hours before staff tried to assist her, according to the report.

Despite it being against DOC policy to house inmates with medical conditions in solitary confinement, the report charges medical staff cleared her to be housed in the unit anyway.
As the Black Lives Matter movement has shown… “law enforcement” agencies need to have their funding cut, this should have never been a legal matter but rather a social work matter, she needed mental healthcare not to be locked up in jail because she couldn't make bond. Attempting to bite a person shouldn’t be a life sentence.

Saturday, June 27, 2020

Saturday 9

On Saturdays I take a break from the heavy stuff and have some fun…

Unfamiliar with this week's tune? Hear it here.

1) This song is about the fantasy of being one of the "beautiful people," but how hollow the reality can be. Do you often find yourself envying others for what they have?
No I am happy, I got my health and good friends what more do you need.

2) Ed Sheeran sings that he and his girl don't fit in well because they're "just ourselves." Who among your close friends do you find it easiest to be "just yourself?"
Just about everyone I am friends with, after all why do you need to hang around with people you can’t relax with.

3) The lyrics refer to Hummers and Lamborghinis. What's your dream ride?
My Prius Prime. When I was in high school most of the guys drove fancy cars but I had my Opel Rally.

4) Ed believes in giving back. One cause he supports is No Cold Homes, which helps ensure that everyone in the English city of Bristol has the fuel needed to keep their homes safe and comfortable. Here in the United States, he's raised funds for Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Is there a cause that's near and dear to your heart?

5) Ed's arms are covered in tattoos, so clearly he doesn't suffer from trypanophobia, or a fear of needles. How about you? Do you look away when the doctor gives you a shot?

6) One of Ed's tattoos is a bottle of Heinz Ketchup. What condiments would we find if we peeked into your refrigerator this morning?
The full line of them… ketchup, mustard, mayo, and hot sauce. 

7) Ed is a natural redhead, a trait he shares with only 2% of the population. Does red hair run in your family?
My aunt had red hair… but you could see her roots

8)  In 2019, when this song was released, the FDA recommended the approval of a drug for treating peanut allergies in children. Do you suffer from any food allergies, or sensitivities?
I suffer from a strong aversion to mushrooms.

9) Random question: What of these do you think is the biggest contributing factor to success -- hard work, luck or talent?
My brains and good nature.
Definitely not my smile.

Thanks so much for joining us again at Saturday: 9. As always, feel free to come back, see who has participated and comment on their posts. In fact sometimes, if you want to read & comment on everyone's responses, you might want to check back again tomorrow. But it is not a rule. We haven’t any rules here. Join us on next Saturday for another version of Saturday: 9, "Just A Silly Meme on a Saturday!" Enjoy your weekend!

Race Point in the Cape Cod National Seashore

That is the old Coast Guard Life Saving Station Museum in Provincetown MA

Friday, June 26, 2020

Trans Police

It must be really hard to be a trans person and to be a police officer.
Officer Megan Woods is the only known out transgender officer within the Chicago Police Department
NBC Chicago
By Chris Hushd 
June 25, 2020

As Chicago nears what was supposed to be the popular Pride parade this weekend, one of the city’s only known out transgender police officers is speaking out.

Officer Megan Woods, a 17-year veteran of the Chicago Police Department,says she hopes her story provides hope for others during uncertain times.
“People really respected being macho and masculine,” Officer Woods said, explaining why she didn’t tell her family or colleagues for years. “It literally led me down some very dark roads. I’ve struggled with alcoholism and suicide attempts.”
“You can see their attitude change right away, especially when I come out of vehicle and they realize there’s an LGBT person in an LGBT car,” Ofc. Woods said. “Their perceptions change, and they realize they have a voice.”
I have met a couple of trans officers here in Connecticut and to say the least they have had a bumpy road, I believe both have filed complaints with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), and I have met Hartford’s LGBTQ+ liaison officer, officer Kelly Baerga who is a lesbian and she has also had problems with other officers.
HARTFORD — The Hartford Police Department has released its report following an internal investigation into alleged inappropriate comments made by a superv…
Fox 61
Author: Samara Abramson
April 10, 2019

HARTFORD -- The Hartford Police Department has released its report following an internal investigation into alleged inappropriate comments made by a supervisor, toward a female officer.

Officer Kelly Baerga was the LGBTQ liaison for the Hartford Police Department. In May 2018, she alleged that her then supervisor, Sergeant Andrew Rodney, made repeated inappropriate comments to her over an eight-month period.

Baerga accused the department of having a culture that makes many female officers feel unsafe. In one instance, Baerga accused Rodney of making a comment that she said was meant to ‘out’ her to a colleague.
It has to be hard to be LGBTQ police officers working in such a macho environment.

Thursday, June 25, 2020


Even in this environment the has been fostered by the current administration we have victories. The people are not buying it!

Two stories this morning, one is about a trans person being made head of a department at a major university and the other a poll that found broad base support for us.
Rutgers University: Catherine Fitzpatrick may be the first openly transgender woman in the U.S. to lead a women's and gender studies program
Rutgers Today via Patch
By Eric Kiefer, Patch Staff
June 12, 2020

An English literature professor at the university since 2014, Fitzpatrick believes she may be the first openly transgender woman in the country to lead a Women's and Gender Studies program.

On the face of it, there is nothing earth shattering about the appointment of a professor with Fitzpatrick's experience and credentials to this position. Born in London to a family of Irish builders, the current Brooklyn resident is Oxford educated, with previous teaching positions at the University of Sheffield and The New School. Fitzpatrick is also an accomplished writer, poet and performer, with a lengthy list of published books, essays, poems, grants, awards and prizes.

There are openly transgender scholars who lead other programs and departments at the university level, according to Yale professor Susan Stryker, one of the country's foremost scholars on gender issues. But when Fitzpatrick was asked to take the helm of a program dedicated to the study of women and gender – an appointment Stryker also thinks is a first for a transgender woman – it felt like the ultimate validation of her true self.
When you think about it this is just really about the best person getting the job, nothing unusual about it. But for the fact that she is trans didn’t matter, the fact that she is trans didn’t enter into the picture something that doesn’t happen very often.

As a community we face a very high rate of unemployment and every success should be celebrated and acknowledged.

A major health non-profit conducted a poll and found wide spread support for us in employment and health care.
Half Say Society Hasn’t Gone Far Enough in Accepting Transgender People
The Kaiser Family Foundation/
June 24, 2020

Large majorities of Americans think it should be illegal for either employers or health care providers to discriminate against people because they are lesbian, gay or bisexual, or transgender, a new KFF poll finds. This includes large majorities of Republicans, independents and Democrats across a range of questions about such discrimination.

The poll gauges the public’s views following two major developments this month that move in opposite directions on LGBTQ protections. First, the Trump administration finalized regulations removing protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity (including transgender status) in health care, arguing that the definition of sex does not extend to either. Then last week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gender identity and sexual orientation are protected under the definition of sex discrimination in the workplace.

The poll finds:
  • 9 in 10 in ten adults agree with last week’s Supreme Court ruling, say it should be illegal for employers to fire or refuse to hire people because they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual (90%) or transgender (89%).
  • About 9 in 10 say it should be illegal for doctors or other health care providers to refuse to treat people because they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual (89%) or transgender (88%).
  • 85% say it should be illegal for health insurance companies to refuse to pay for health care services for people who are transgender.
  • In each case, large majorities across partisan lines, including more than 7 in 10 Republicans, think such discrimination against LGBTQ people should be illegal.
Did you get that?

Ninety percent of the people think that the Supreme Court did the right thing in banning employment discrimination against us! In the climate where the Trump administration is doing everything it can to strip us of our rights the people are not buying it.
Other findings include:
  • Most adults say that people who are transgender (79%) or are lesbian, gay or bisexual (74%) face at least some discrimination in the U.S. today. This is similar to the share who say the same about Black (84%) and Hispanic (77%) people. While still a majority, a smaller share of Republicans say each of these groups face at least some discrimination.
  • Half (49%) of the public says our society has “not gone far enough in accepting people who are transgender,” up 10 percentage points from a 2017 Pew Research Center Poll. In comparison, relatively few (15%) today say our society has “gone too far” in accepting people who are transgender, and a third (32%) say it “has been about right.” A similar share of Republicans say society has gone too far (30%) as say it has not gone far enough (24%).
  • More than a third of adults (36%) say they personally know someone who is transgender, including nearly half (46%) of those under age 30.
I like the last finding the best… our visibility is paying off! 

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

Like A Bad Penny, A Bed Research Paper Keeps Turning Up.

Amazon doesn’t allow “Smile” to go to hate groups and of course the religious fanatics are hopping mad.

Amazon has barred the book "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters" from their Smile program, the funds were going to go to the Family Research Council (FRC),
The Family Research Council has spent decades saying that LGBTQ people are pedophiles. Why was Amazon giving them cash in the first place?
LGBTQ Nation
By Alex Bollinger 
June 23, 2020

Amazon just kicked an anti-LGBTQ hate group out of its charity program, and Christian conservatives are decrying the corporation’s “bias against conservatives.”

Amazon runs a program, AmazonSmile, that donates money to charities customers can pick from a list of approved organizations.

Until earlier this month, customers could choose to have Amazon give a portion of their purchases to the Family Research Council (FRC), an organization dedicated to opposing LGBTQ rights.

But the Washington Times‘s Kay C. James reports that FRC has been removed from the list of charities customers can choose, complaining that all hate groups are banned from AmazonSmile.
Two years ago, Amazon booted the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) – another anti-LGBTQ hate group – from AmazonSmile.
The ADF is the legal organization that has filed a law suit against the towns and the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) for allowing trans athletes.

Look how the conservative Wall Street Journal (Is owned by Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox) covers the story.
The company won’t allow a publisher’s ads for my skeptical book.
The Wall Street Journal
By Abigail Shrier
June 22, 2020

If you write a book celebrating troubled teenage girls suddenly coming out as “transgender” in friend groups, pursuing a regimen of cross-sex hormones and surgeries—Amazon will happily promote it. But if you write a book that points out the risks of this gender journey, Amazon wants nothing to do with you.

In fact, the book has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Building on the work of Brown University public health researcher, Lisa Littman, “Irreversible Damage” argues that transgender identification among teen girls has become a social contagion. Girls who might have encouraged each other in bulimia, anorexia or cutting are today deciding they have “gender dysphoria,” pushing for hormones and surgeries—and easily obtaining them.
Okay lets stop there for a bit.

“Building on the work of Brown University public health researcher” if you don’t know about Lisa Littman you can read my blog article here and here. But basically her research was flawed by the way she did her research on trans children transitioning, instead of interviewing the children she interviewed the parents and she found the parents on a conservative website. She gave the title of the transitioning of trans children the fancy name “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” or ROGD.

The Christian CBN wrote,
The author previously told CBN News that she does hear from parents on this serious issue of young females who suddenly want a new gender identity, but that some don't acknowledge it enough. 

"I do hear from parents, but to be honest, I don't hear from enough to some extent," she said. "I don't think Democrats particularly are awake to the issue."
A commenter on WSJ said it best…
Conservative author with no medical qualifications writes book dismissing gender dysphoria. Conservative commenters with no medical qualifications jump on the bandwagon with feigned outrage. Lather, rinse, repeat...

Tuesday, June 23, 2020

What’s Being Done.

Last week (was it only last week, it seems like a life time ago) the Trump administration strip us from our healthcare be revising Section 1557 is the nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in certain health programs or activities.

The Trump administration as narrowly defined “sex” as what is between your legs. 
June 12, 2020

The Trump administration on Friday finalized a rule that would remove nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people when it comes to health care and health insurance.

"HHS respects the dignity of every human being, and as we have shown in our response to the pandemic, we vigorously protect and enforce the civil rights of all to the fullest extent permitted by our laws as passed by Congress," said Roger Severino, who directs the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services, in a written statement announcing that the HHS rule had become final. The rule is set to go into effect by mid-August.

It is one of many rules and regulations put forward by the Trump administration that defines "sex discrimination" as only applying when someone faces discrimination for being female or male, and does not protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
But at the same time the Supreme Court said no, the word sex means a lot more than chromosomes, “...fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," Gorsuch wrote.

You know that there will be challenging to the ruling, and LGBTQ right organizations have filed law suits against the ruling.

The GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders is one of those organizations...
“The Trump administration’s new interpretation of Section 1557 contradicts the Affordable Care Act, is dangerous to transgender people, and won’t survive federal challenge,” said GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. GLAD is currently in federal court challenging the denial of healthcare to a transgender man under the ACA’s non-discrimination statute referred to as Section 1557.

Pangborn v. Ascend, a federal lawsuit brought by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of a transgender man denied coverage for gender affirming care, will test the legitimacy of the Trump administration’s reversal of an HHS rule that had previously made clear that transgender people are covered under the ACA’s non-discrimination provision known as Section 1557. The case alleges, among other claims, that Alexander Pangborn’s employer violated the ACA by categorically excluding insurance coverage for transgender people’s medical needs relating to gender transition.
Another is Lambda Legal…
“Today, Lambda Legal, a broad coalition of LGBTQ groups, and the people our clients serve say ‘enough’ to the incessant attacks from the very agency charged with protecting their health and well-being.”
It will be a long summer and fall until the election and then there is the 78 days between the election and the swearing in of the President. A lot of harm can be done in those 78 days.



Vote this November like your life depends upon it because it does.

In other news, you might remember that the state of Idaho banned trans athletes, well there has been backlash over the new law.
Idaho is now one of 12 states that California will longer offer state-funded travel to after Idaho passed two transgender bills in the last legislative session.
By Associated Press
June 22, 2020

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has added Idaho to a list of 11 other states where state-funded travel isn’t allowed because he determined that they violate a California law. 

That 2017 law is intended to guard against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Becerra on Monday cited two new laws that he says allow discrimination against transgender people. 
"The State of Idaho has taken drastic steps to undermine the rights of the transgender community, preventing people from playing sports in school or having documentation that reflects their identity. Let's not beat around the bush: these laws are plain and simple discrimination. That's why Idaho joins the list of AB 1887 discriminating states," Becerra said in a statement.

Monday, June 22, 2020

Dissed In Life, Dissed In Death.

We have a hard life and sometimes death doesn’t make it go away.
Colorado State Patrol troopers are armed with tasers, but it doesn't appear he even tried to use his before shooting her multiple times
LGBTQ Nation
By Bil Browning 
June 17, 2020

Jayne Thompson was shot and killed by a Colorado State Patrol trooper last month, but it took until this week before it was disclosed that the officer had killed a transgender woman. For weeks, the Colorado State Police and local media misgendered her and said a man had been shot.

Thompson was killed the same week two Black transgender women: Dominique Rem’mie Fells of Pennsylvania and Riah Milton of Ohio. All three were slain as the country protested police brutality and racial justice with massive marches and rallies. Thompson is white.

According to details provided by the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office, Thompson was reported lying motionless near a grocery store and unresponsive when passersby offered assistance. When Trooper Jason Wade arrived on the scene, Thompson “began to act aggressively and brandished an approximately 10-inch knife” according to the police report.
In the old days (When I was growing up) I don’t think that there were that many people who were shot by the police. Maybe I was naive, maybe it was because I lived in a white suburb, or maybe as people said that nobody had cellphone cameras but it seemed to me that there were a lot less police murders.
“[I]t is clear that Jayne was in crisis when she was approached by Colorado State Patrol,” Tori Cooper, director of community engagement for HRC’s Transgender Justice Initiative, said. “When members of the community need help, the expectation is to protect and serve and not to be killed.”
Police nationwide frequently misgender transgender people and use their given “deadname” to the media instead of the name the victim actually used that matches their gender identity.
Back then it seemed like the police were willing to talk people out of jumping off a ledge and now they push them. Now it is shoot first because it is easier than trying to talk to someone I think that is because they know that they can kill someone and get away with it.

I can't help but think how it might have been different if it was a social worker who responded to call with a police officer if the social worker might have defused the situation avoiding the killing.

In this day of age, the police should not be misgendering trans people, I can only assume that it must be done on purpose.


One of the places I lay the blame is on the media, not the news-media but police shows and movies.

Look at shows like Hawaii 50, or Magnum, P.I. and compare to old 70s shows to the new shows and look at how the violence is portrayed, how much more violent and gory the new shows are.

Not only that but the shows today have a lot more police who cut corners and don’t follow the rules. Yes, there were some movies about rogue cops especially “undercover” cops but now there are TV shows that are about rogue police squads. The ends justifies the means.

I don’t think you can lay all the blame all on the media, after all we are watching it. If we were not watching it, it wouldn’t be in the movies or on TV. But I do think it has a created an environment where violence is acceptable.


Sunday, June 21, 2020

Did You Expect Something Different From Him?

Well Trump did the obvious, appointed another anti-LGBTQ person to head an agency.
The move to install Trump loyalists to the board comes after Pack purged longtime board members and executives just weeks after officially becoming USAGM’s new CEO. 
By Brian Schwartz
June 19 2020

Michael Pack, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Agency for Global Media, has appointed to the organization’s board a person with ties to an anti-LGBT group and another who publicly bashed President Barack Obama’s transgender policy. 

The board of directors for these media organizations that are overseen by the USAGM have a say on who is selected to become leaders of the companies they represent. Their ties and previous remarks could give a preview into the way Michael Pack, the CEO of the agency, is remaking the federally funded news organization to fit a more conservative tone.
Among the agencies that he will oversee is Voice of America
The board moves come after Pack purged longtime board members and executives just weeks after officially becoming USAGM’s new CEO. Trump himself has publicly taken aim at Voice of America, one of the news organizations overseen by the agency. 
Alexandre [is expected to be a corporate board member for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty] is also senior counsel for government affairs at Liberty Counsel Action, an associated 501(c)(4), that, according to their website,  “advances religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, the family, responsible government, national security, and support for Israel at the federal, state, and local levels.”
He is politicizing Voice of America which in recent years has been working to be a balance and respectable as BBC, now that effort has been thrown away.
Why is this important to the LGBTQ+ community?

Because the former Warsaw Pact countries are becoming Fascist and strongly anti-LGBTQ, some of those countries have passed law banning us and in other countries they have set up concentration type camps for LGBTQ people and now into that mix Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Voice of America will throw their message of anti-LGBTQ hate. 

Saturday, June 20, 2020

No Posts Today

I am heading up to the cottage today to check on the contractor to see if he put the furniture back and to see if the cable problem is a simple fix or if I will have to call the cable company to repair it.
If it is a simple thing like a connector then I will stay up there for the weekend

Friday, June 19, 2020

Filing A Complaint.

Do you know how hard it is to prove discrimination?

The deck is stacked against us, your employer just about has to come out and say that they are not hiring you or they fired you because you are trans.
Amid a wave of new anti-trans state laws, Transcendence is a series centering the lived experience and resilience of trans youth. In this reported op-ed, transgender musician, writer, performance artist and comedienne Polly Anna Rocha writes about what a Supreme Court ruling and  the coronavirus mean for trans people at work.
By Polly Anna Rocha
June 18, 2020

When I graduated from college in the spring of 2015, I was unemployed, newly transitioning and entirely unprepared for the overwhelming negative impact that being openly trans would have on my employment status.

In the following months, I learned my trans identity would be the focal point of every job interview going forward. I learned that I would always be judged and picked apart for my appearance, or singled out for having my dead name and assigned gender marker on my driver’s license. This was made especially clear when I landed my first job as an out trans employee.
In the midst of an economic crisis fueled by COVID-19, the transgender community is among the most vulnerable populations as workers across the country face pandemic-related workplace shutdowns. While a new Supreme Court ruling has offered nondiscrimination protections for trans people — meaning we can file a case if we are fired for being trans — the realities of working while trans remain bleak.
Mathews said the pandemic has exposed the ways trans people ignore microaggressions and harassment to de-escalate a confrontation or limit an interaction in the workplace. In other words, many of us need to be employed more than we need to feel safe or valued at our jobs.
It is so hard to prove discrimination especially when looking for a job, they can come up with a thousand reasons why they didn’t hire you and you have to prove that it was only because you’re trans. Unless they are really, really stupid and the say in the interview “We don’t hire trans people.”

When I was a supervisor I was told by HR a few time to keep track of an employee and I told my employee is tracking them and they also should keep a logbook.

The best advice that I can give trans people is if you haven’t transitioned yet don’t until you have an employee review under your belt before you transition. I know it sucks but if you want a good job and you can possibly wait 6 months to transition do so. Because once you have a couple of performance reviews in your file it will be a lot harder to fire you.

And as I said above keep a logbook, write everything down because if you do file a discrimination complaint you will need that information… I went to HR on this date and time and told them that this person said this to me.

It sucks… but that is the reality that we live in.

Discrimination is not just about work, it is about all aspects of of our lives including education and the government.
Education Week
By Associated Press
June 18, 2020

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A group of Congressional Democrats is condemning a recent decision by the U.S. Department of Education that threatens to withhold federal funds over a Connecticut policy allowing transgender girls to compete against non-transgender girls in high school sports.

The group of 28 lawmakers sent a letter Wednesday to Kenneth Marcus, the department's assistant secretary for civil rights, questioning the motives and legal reasoning behind the May decision that found Connecticut's policy is a violation of Title IX, the federal civil rights law that guarantees equal education opportunities for women.

“Title IX was never meant to be used as a tool to threaten schools into discriminatory practices in order to preserve critically needed federal funds,” said Connecticut U.S. Rep. Jahana Hayes, a former national teacher of the year.
The Congressional letter, which was signed six of the seven members of the Connecticut delegation and 22 other congressional Democrats, questions notes that cisgender girls have beaten one of those transgender athletes in 10 different races.

Among other things, the members of Congress have demanded to know why the Department of Education is apparently violating its own policy by not deferring the federal court case.
I think that Monday’s Supreme Court ruling will have an affect on this, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Title IX argument banning us used the same reasons and logic that was struck down by the court for Title VII. I wouldn’t be surprise if a motion is brought in the court case motioning to drop the case because of the Supreme Court ruling.

Thursday, June 18, 2020

A Different Word, A Different Attack.

Can a word make a difference?

Or when is conversion therapy not conversion therapy, does calling it “non-affirming therapy” make a difference?
Amid a wave of new anti-trans state laws, Transcendence is a series centering the lived experience and resilience of trans youth. 
By Heron Greenesmith
June 17, 2020

Over the past three years, hundreds of parents whose children have come out to them as transgender or gender nonconforming have turned to the Gender Critical Support Board. Founded in 2017 “for parents and families by parents and families who share the experience of coping with a child, teenager, or young adult who believes she or he is transgender,” the online comment board has thousands of posts from parents who are desperate for help — but many of these parents aren’t looking for trans-affirming care.

Just look at a sample of some posts: “I need a therapist for my male-identified daughter who won’t just affirm without any questions. We are desperate. Thank you.” 

“Glad you found a great therapist. I have yet to find one non-affirming therapist.” 

“Seeking non-affirming therapist in Syracuse area.” 

“It might be a good idea to start researching therapists so you have a go-to plan if it ever comes to that. You’ll find that a lot of people in the medical and therapy fields are affirming and that is the LAST thing you want. So cultivate a list if you can of non-affirming therapists and doctors.”
So are non-affirming therapists and doctors doing conversion therapy?

The Connecticut law banning conversion therapy (Public Act No. 17-5) defines it as,
(1) "Conversion therapy" means any practice or treatment administered to a person under eighteen years of age that seeks to change the person's sexual orientation or gender identity, including, but not limited to, any effort to change gender expression or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward persons of the same gender. "Conversion therapy" does not include counseling intended to (A) assist a person undergoing gender transition, (B) provide acceptance, support and understanding to the person, or (C) facilitate the person's coping, social support or identity exploration and development, including, but not limited to, any therapeutic intervention that is neutral with regard to sexual orientation and seeks to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices, provided such counseling does not seek to change the person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
So is non-affirming therapy a violation of Connecticut law?
Some parents on the Gender Critical Support Board may be seeking what many would view as conversion therapists for their children — licensed mental-health-care workers who, in the parents’ words “won’t just affirm [their gender identity] without any questions.” These parents don’t view “non-affirming therapists” as conversion therapists, but the connections are clear: “gender-critical therapy” is the newest cover of a song that’s been playing for the past 50 years. And while the methods aren’t perfectly aligned, the harm that can be caused by these kinds of practices can be as severe. The desired outcome — rejection of transgender identity — is a message that’s been broadcast by a network of quasi-medical organizations, the evangelical anti-LGBTQ right, and the old guard of conversion therapists who’ve been defending their harmful actions for decades. (Teen Vogue has reached out to the Board for comment.)
If you look at "’Conversion therapy’ does not include… (C) facilitate the person's coping, social support or identity exploration and development, including, but not limited to, any therapeutic intervention that is neutral” so it boils down to if the non-affirming therapists and doctors therapy is neutral in their treatment.

However, I doubt very much if the non-affirming therapists and doctors will be neutral.

The article raises another question, accreditation.

You probably have heard of the healthcare professional association… AMA, APA, the Endocrine Society, and others but have you heard of these associations?
Sam Ames is the executive director of Our Family Coalition, an organization that advances equity for LGBTQ families. They are also the founder of NCLR’s #BornPerfect campaign to end conversion therapy. Ames told me that “credentialing” — or using a license, medical degree, or other credential to give weight to an opinion that goes against the overwhelming preponderance of evidence — is an effective tactic. “The science is clear,” Ames said, “but their advocacy is impactful. Shouting works.”

The parents on the Gender Critical Support Board often share ACPeds resources and pediatrician names with one another.

But ACPeds is only one of the the largest and most vocal of a network of organizations who rely on credentialing to oppose trans-affirming care. Among them are the Gender Care Consumer Advocacy Network, ReThink Identity Medicine and Ethics, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, Gender Health Query, and the Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Dysphoria Working Group. Looking at these names, one could easily assume there was a strong medical argument against trans-affirming care for youth, or even potentially a discussion worth having. But let me repeat:

There is no valid medical argument against trans-affirming care for youth.
Many of these “associations” refuse to give membership information or the circulation of their “professional journals” so we don’t know if they are just a storefront with a printer.

And I have to wonder about Telemedicine.

Suppose a therapist in a state without a Conversion Therapy ban treats a patient in a state with a ban, how can they be prosecuted for violating the law? Can they have their license revoked and fined in another state? Can they be sued by the person who they treated for malpractice in another state?

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

America’s Attention Span.

We have a very short attention spans as a nation we get bored easily.

COVID-19… that was yesterday’s news, now everyone is talking about Trump walking down the ramp at West Point or the way he drank a glass of water.
By Jeffey Kluger and Chris Wilson
June 12, 2020

It’s been months now since U.S. President Donald Trump predicted his miracle. That was back in February, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the president announced that come April, when the weather got warmer, the coronavirus would “miraculously [go] away.”
Instead, the U.S. is very much on fire, well into a second phase of the crisis, with the COVID-19 caseload steadily rising to more than 2 million confirmed cases and more than 113,000 deaths. According to a TIME analysis, 25 states are continuing to see case counts grow day by day. Four of those states—Arizona, California, Mississippi and North Carolina—have yet to decline for any extended window even temporarily; the rest appear to have initially bent the curve downward and are now experiencing a second wave of infections. And in many of those cases, the second phase is worse than the first, or on track to erase any encouraging declines in the past month. In Oregon, for example, the state appeared to flatten the curve very early, peaking at 1.76 cases per 100,000 people on April 2 and declining to 0.8 by May 24. In the intervening two weeks, a resurgent wave has pushed that figure past its previous peak to 2.3 as of June 8—and still likely to grow.
Arizona Family reported that Gov. Doug Ducey said,
"The virus is not going away," said Ducey. "There's no cure for this virus and no vaccines. We need to learn to live with it and make sure we are protecting the most vulnerable in our society." 

Some reporters in the crowd came back with questions for the governor. One asked if Ducey was "tone deaf" when it comes to recent ride in positive cases in Arizona.
We are sick and tried on being cooped up… we want our freedom!

The Miami Herald reported that,
By Don Sweeney
June 16, 2020

An influential University of Washington model used by the White House now forecasts a national coronavirus death toll of more than 200,000 by Oct. 1, The Washington Post reports.

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model predicts 201,129 deaths in the United States from coronavirus by Oct. 1.

It had earlier forecast 169,890 U.S. deaths by that date, McClatchy News previously reported.
The model projects that Florida will be one of the worst-hit states, with its projected death toll rising from 6,559 to 18,675 by Oct. 1, The Washington Post reports.

California and Arizona also will see sharp increases in projected deaths, according to the publication.

“We’re going to get another 100,000 deaths by September,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, head of Harvard’s Global Health Institute, which also predicts 200,000 U.S. coronavirus deaths by September, CNN reports.
The COVID Act Now has some interesting graphs.

The states with the most active COVID policies have the lowest number of cases, while the state with lax policies have medium to high number of reported cases.

But have you noticed that the people don’t care about the virus anymore… it is yesterday’s news.
South Carolina was the first state to begin lifting restrictions, on April 20. Others went much later, especially New York, which remains the epicenter of the crisis, and did not begin opening back up in some regions of the state until May 15—pointedly excluding hard-hit New York City. Only on June 8 was the city permitted to resume non-essential construction and manufacturing and reopen non-essential stores. Museums, theaters, restaurants, bars and other high-traffic venues remain shuttered.

The apparent result of this disparate approach: South Carolina is back in crisis mode, while New York is seeing its lowest infection levels since March 1.

“You can make a mistake today that wipes out everything we’ve done so far, so we have to stay smart,” said New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, at a June 11 briefing.
As of June 10, that sequence has reversed. The Northeast is now the region with the lowest daily case rate, at 3.7. The Midwest, at 4.4., isn’t too far behind. Both have flattened the curve significantly in the last month or so. Meanwhile, daily case rates in the West and South have been on the rise, and are both now at about 6.5 per 100,000 residents.
Even in states like New York where they had taken early steps to control they are now ignoring the warning about social gatherings.
CBS News
June 14, 2020

“We have gotten 25,000 complaints, to the state, of businesses that are in violation of the reopening plan,” said Cuomo. “We have never received more complaints in a shorter period of time.”

He added the complaints have come mostly from Manhattan and The Hamptons.

Cuomo said he would “reverse” course in regions where the state’s reopening plan is not being followed.

The governor said inspectors from the state Liquor Authority are out, along with a task force of state investigators.
I seen state parks with “Full” signs up and the parking lot is closed, but the people are parking down the road and going through the woods to get to the beaches, and they are not wearing any masks.


People want to get back to normal and as the Time article said, “America Is Done With COVID-19. COVID-19 Isn’t Done With America”

We are ripe for a second and third wave of the virus.

Me... I am going to keep my social distance until I feel safe, limiting my contact to friends and necessary store visits. 

We just traveled back in time to the beginning of the year.
There is no virus threat.
Only a few cases.
It will go away in a couple of weeks.
One big media hoax.
Now the same people are saying that there is no second wave.

Who are we to believe?
By Tom Jones
June 17, 2020

A new forecast is out: 200,000 people will die in the U.S. from the coronavirus by Oct. 1.

CBS News reports that 20 states are seeing increases in the average number of new infections each day. In nearly half of those states, there are more patients being treated in hospitals than there were at the start of June. The New York Times wrote, “… as of Saturday, the daily number of new coronavirus cases was climbing in 22 states, shifting course from what had been downward trajectories in many of those places.”

Texas has seen hospitalizations rise more than 50% since Memorial Day. Florida is setting records with daily cases. A spokesperson at Jackson Health, one of Florida’s largest health systems, said it is seeing a “spike” in COVID-19 cases.

These are real numbers based on official data.

Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said Tuesday, “We may be done with the pandemic, but the pandemic is not done with us.
But our great Vice President said that is not true…
Pence wrote, “In recent days, the media has taken to sounding the alarm bells over a ‘second wave’ of coronavirus infections. Such panic is overblown. Thanks to the leadership of President Trump and the courage and compassion of the American people, our public health system is far stronger than it was four months ago, and we are winning the fight against the invisible enemy.”

Pence mentioned “cable news coverage,” though he never named a specific network. He touted the Trump administration’s work against the coronavirus, pointing out where he feels they have had success, as well as praising the “resilience of the American people.”
“...praising the “resilience of the American people.” as the American people are dying off.

WASHINGTON — Vice President Mike Pence encouraged governors on Monday to adopt the administration’s explanation that a rise in testing was a reason behind new coronavirus outbreaks, even though testing data has shown that such a claim is misleading.
Lets stop and think for a while.

What we know;
  • Yes, there is an increase in testing.
  • Yes, there have been more positive cases found.
So is it because we doing more testing and the results are misleading as Pence maintains or is it because there are more cases out there then we knew about and we are just finding them? It almost sounds like what Pence is saying is the testing causes the virus.

So who are you going to believe because your life may depend upon your answer.

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Deep Impact.

Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling have major impact all around the country… it is huge.

Just here in Connecticut there is a lawsuit against trans athletes, the same language that is in Title VII is also in Title IX, the ruling might make it moot and also take a look at Idaho they just passed laws banning us from playing in sports here in Connecticut there is a lawsuit.
BySami Edge
June 10, 2020

BOISE — Dozens of advocacy organizations and hundreds of athletes are asking the NCAA to move college sports events out of Idaho in response to a state law that bans transgender women from participating in women’s sports.

The coalition argues that Idaho’s law “blatantly targets an already-marginalized community,” and runs contrary to the values of the NCAA, which governs collegiate athletics. Athletes argue that Idaho should be banned from hosting NCAA events as long as the law is in place.

“This is the time for the NCAA to stand on the right side of history and support the rights of all athletes in Idaho to compete in the sports they love,” reads a letter signed by more than 400 student athletes. “…With HB500 remaining law in Idaho, it is impossible for the NCAA to host events that are inclusive and safe for all athletes.”

The letters specifically ask the NCAA to move the first and second rounds of the 2021 Men’s Division I Basketball Championship games away from Boise State University, as first reported by Sports Illustrated on Wednesday morning.

Idaho became the first state to ban transgender female athletes in women’s sports in March, when Gov. Brad Little signed the so-called “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” written by Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, and Sen. Mary Souza, R-Coeur d’Alene.
How do you think the court ruling today will influence their decision?

Then there is article the NCAA is listening.
Several groups want the NCAA to not hold championship events in Idaho due to a controversial new state law
CBS Sports    
By David Cobb 
June 11, 2020

The NCAA responded Thursday to a request by dozens of advocacy groups to move 2021 Men's Basketball NCAA Tournament first and second round games out of Boise, Idaho, due to a new state law banning transgender women from playing on women's sports teams.
In a statement, the NCAA said the law "conflicts with the NCAA's core values of inclusivity, respect and the equitable treatment of all individuals," and the law will be discussed by its Board of Governors in August. 

"NCAA championships are open to everyone, and the Association is committed to assuring that its events are safe and healthy for all who attend," the NCAA statement said. "It is our clear expectation that all NCAA student-athletes will be welcomed, treated with respect, and have nondiscriminatory participation wherever they compete."
So maybe the boycott and the Supreme Court decision will them think twice… Naw, they’re Republicans.

Trump comes out with a comment on the Supreme Court decision…
Reporting by Jeff Mason; Writing by Mohammad Zargham; Editing by Leslie Adler
June 15, 2020

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Monday he will live with the U.S. Supreme Court decision that a federal law barring workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said the ruling was a very powerful decision.
The worlds most outspoken person only said… it “was a very powerful decision.”

Pink News UK reported,
Donald Trump had a bland response to Supreme Court ruling.
But asked about the ruling on Monday, Donald Trump issued a bland response and appeared unaware that his own Department of Justice had opposed the ruling.

He told reporters: “They’ve ruled. I’ve read the decision, and some people were surprised, but they’ve ruled and we live with their decision. That’s what it’s all about.

“We live with the decision of the Supreme Court, very powerful. A very powerful decision, actually, but they have so ruled.”
I want to see what he does now.

Will he rollback the…
  • The stripping of healthcare for us?
  • Banning of trans servicemembers?
  • Title IX Department of Education Office of Civil Rights rulings against us?
  • Will they drop the case against trans athletes?
  • And the hundreds of other things his administration has done to us?
Or will we have to fight in court to get those changes thrown out?

Monday, June 15, 2020

NEWS FLASH!… Beep, beep, beep… Supreme Court...

...Rules in our favor, we are covered under “sex” in the Civil Rights Act Title VII !!! 

And most like Title IX also.
The decision said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status.
NBC News
By Pete Williams
June 15, 2020

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that existing federal law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status, a major victory for advocates of gay rights — and a surprising one from an increasingly conservative court.

In decisions on two separate cases, the court said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, among other factors, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status. It upheld rulings from lower courts that said discrimination based on those factors was a form of sex discrimination.
The Trump administration had urged the court to rule that Title VII does not cover cases like those, in a reversal from the position the government took during the Obama administration.
CBS News reported…
The court's 6-3 ruling extends the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion, to include LGBTQ people. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the majority's opinion, joined the liberal wing of the bench in ruling that "an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII."

"Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations," Gorsuch wrote. "In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee's sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law."
And Justice Neil Gorsuch is a Trump appointee. I bet you Trump will be in a tizzy over this “defection.”
The third legal battle before the justices raised the question of whether Title VII prohibits discrimination based on gender identity.

At the center of the case is Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman, who was fired from R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan after she told her employer in 2013 she suffered from gender dysphoria and would dress as a woman at work. Stephens died in May.
Let us remember Aimee Stephens and Donald Zarda who brought these cases forward, it is sad that she is not here with us now to see this victory.
In a dissenting opinion on Monday, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, accused the majority of legislating from the bench and likened the opinion to "a pirate ship" that "sails under a textualist flag."

"There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation," he wrote. "The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive."
Ah… it seems like the it is okay for conservative to legislate from the bench but when a ruling goes against them all of sudden legislating from the bench.

This case has it roots in a Supreme Court ruling that sex also includes sex stereotyping (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 1989) and the court case that I liked was Schroer v. Billington case where the judge said…
Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testifies that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only "converts." That would be a clear case of discrimination "because of religion." No court would take seriously the notion that "converts" are not covered by the statute. Discrimination "because of religion" easily encompasses discrimination because of a change of religion. But in cases where the plaintiff has changed her sex, and faces discrimination because of the decision to  stop presenting as a man and to start appearing as a woman, courts have traditionally carved such persons out of the statute by concluding that "transsexuality" is unprotected by Title VII. In other words, courts have allowed their focus on the label "transsexual" to blind them to the statutory language itself.

Fox News wrote this about the decision…
The court justified their inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII by focusing on the law’s language, which prohibits discrimination “because of” sex, stating that as long as sex is a factor the discrimination, that is enough to trigger Title VII.

The majority goes on to use a hypothetical where an employer has two workers who are attracted to men, but one is a man and the other is a woman, stating that firing the man for being gay would be discriminating against him because of his sex because he has the same preference as the female employee. The court similarly discussed a potential situation where two workers identified as female but one was identified as male at birth and the other female.

"[T]he individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision," the court said about such situations.

Justice Samuel Alito said the majority went too far, calling the decision "legislation," in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

"There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive," Alito wrote.

Alito noted that the majority opinion "no doubt arises from humane and generous impulses," acknowledging the desire to treat gay, lesbian, and transgender people "with the dignity, consideration, and fairness that everyone deserves," but said the court's role "is limited to saying what the law is," not adding to it.
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans," Kavanaugh wrote. "Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result."
The Trump administration has been trying to narrowly define "sex" as what is between your legs but the court is having none of this.

I think will have a major impact on the Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools case now before the Federal Court here in Connecticut where three student women athletes are suing the CAS and the towns for allowing trans female student athletes to compete in on women’s teams.

My guess is that the judge in the case will throw out the case and that the Alliance Defending Freedom will appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court again.

As for U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights telling Connecticut that they are going to cut funding to the state, I hope the state tells Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to go and pound sand. 

Update 1:00 PM added Donald Zarda name and Fox News

Sunday, June 14, 2020

They Are Different From Us.

There is a lot of research out there showing a different way of thinking between conservatives and liberals.
By Eric W. Dolan
June 10, 2020

New research sheds light on why politically conservative individuals tend to have less favorable views toward gay men and transgender people. The study, published in Sex Roles, indicates that a binary view of gender plays an important role.

“We wanted to explore why those on the political right (vs. left) tend to dislike gay men and transgender people,” said study author Elvira Prusaczyk of Brock University.

“Past research shows that people higher in conservatism (vs. liberalism) are more dogmatic and have higher needs to reduce uncertainty and threat. However, gay men and transgender people violate stereotypical gender roles in society, likely cueing uncertainty and threat. Thus, we were interested in whether traditional views about gender partly explain the link between conservatism and prejudice against gender non-conforming people.”
“People higher in conservatism (vs. liberalism) were more likely to endorse a rigid and binary view of gender, and this binary belief, in turn, predicted greater prejudice toward gender non-conforming people,” Prusaczyk told PsyPost.

But there have been other research that have some interesting facts about the differences.
Research shows different ways of solving everyday problems linked to political ideology
Northwestern Now
By Hilary Hurd Anyaso
March 15, 2016
  • Liberals more likely than conservatives to use ‘Aha!’ strategy to solve problems
  • People don’t consciously choose an insight versus analytic approach in their thinking
  • Thinking defaults automatically to particular approach of problem solving
EVANSTON, Ill. --- Big differences in the ways conservatives and liberals think about solving the nation’s most pressing problems couldn’t be more apparent during this presidential election cycle.

But political ideas aside, people who hold conservative versus liberal perspectives appear to differ in everyday thinking processes and problem solving, according to research from Northwestern University and the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago (RIC).

When solving short (non-political) verbal problems in an experiment, liberals were more likely than conservatives to achieve solutions with a sudden insight or “Aha!” In contrast, both groups achieved roughly an equal number of solutions through gradual, analytical processing.
“Liberals have a less structured and more flexible cognitive style, according to those studies. Our research indicates that cognitive differences in people with different political orientations also are apparent in a task that some consider to be convergent thinking: finding a single solution to a problem,” Salvi said. 

Given previous findings relating political orientation with cognitive styles, the researchers hypothesized that liberals and conservatives would preferentially employ different processes when tackling problems that could be solved using either an analytical or insight approach. 
Past research has demonstrated that different mental processes and distinct brain regions are involved when people report solving these problems with insight, versus when solving analytically.
So we do think differently and use different sides of our brains.

Psychology Today reported in the article “A Complete Psychological Analysis of Trump's Support” that,
1. Practicality Trumps Morality

For some wealthy people, it’s simply a financial matter. Trump offers tax cuts for the rich and wants to do away with government regulation that gets in the way of businessmen making money, even when that regulation exists for the purpose of protecting the environment. Others, like blue-collared workers, like the fact that the president is trying to bring jobs back to America from places like China. Some people who genuinely are not racist (those who are will be discussed later) simply want stronger immigration laws because they know that a country with open borders is not sustainable. These people have put their practical concerns above their moral ones. To them, it does not make a difference if he’s a vagina-grabber, or if his campaign team colluded with Russia to help him defeat his political opponent. It is unknown whether these people are eternally bound to Trump in the way others are, but we may soon find out if the Mueller investigation is allowed to come to completion.
And sadly…
4. “Some Men Just Want to Watch the World Burn.”

Some people are supporting Trump simply to be rebellious or to introduce chaos into the political system. They may have such distaste for the establishment and democrats like Hillary Clinton that their support for Trump is a symbolic middle finger directed at Washington. These people may have other issues, like an innate desire to troll others or an obsession with schadenfreude.
They are probably the ones who during peaceful protests are trying to stir up trouble.

And here are the three that I subscribe to,
5. The Fear Factor: Conservatives Are More Sensitive to Threat

Science has  shown that the conservative brain has an exaggerated fear response when faced with stimuli that may be perceived as threatening. A 2008 study in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological reaction to startling noises and graphic images compared to liberals. A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety. And a 2014 fMRI study found that it is possible to predict whether someone is a liberal or conservative simply by looking at their brain activity while they view threatening or disgusting images, such as mutilated bodies. Specifically, the brains of self-identified conservatives generated more activity overall in response to the disturbing images.
Fear of those who are different from themselves, like us trans people.
9. Lack of Exposure to Dissimilar Others

Intergroup contact refers to contact with members of groups that are outside one’s own, which has been experimentally shown to reduce prejudice. As such, it’s important to note that there is growing evidence that Trump’s white supporters have experienced significantly less contact with minorities than other Americans. For example, a 2016 study found that “…the racial and ethnic isolation of Whites at the zip-code level is one of the strongest predictors of Trump support.” This correlation persisted while controlling for dozens of other variables. In agreement with this finding, the same researchers found that support for Trump increased with the voters’ physical distance from the Mexican border. These racial biases might be more implicit than explicit, the latter which is addressed in #14.
14. Racism and Bigotry

It would be grossly unfair and inaccurate to say that every one of Trump’s supporters have prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities, but it would be equally inaccurate to say that few do. The Republican party, going at least as far back to Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy,” has historically used tactics that appealed to bigotry, such as lacing speeches with “dog whistles” — code words that signaled prejudice toward minorities that were designed to be heard by racists but no one else.
Lets face it, conservatives do not like change because... well because they’re conservative. They are set in their ways and do not like change, they probably put the same shoe on first because that is the way that they have always done it. Period.