Connecticut’s A Blue State… Right?

Well not quite, you have the blue cities and the red suburbs, there just more voters in the cities than out in the country side.

An Opinion in the Saturday Waterbury’s Republican American gives you an idea what we are facing in the suburbs.

TRANSGENDER ORDERS
It didn’t take long for President Biden to slap a “VOID” sticker on the promise of normalcy after the tumultuous Donald Trump era. The flurry of executive orders he has issued since Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, will turn the United States in multiple radical directions…
[…]
Among other things, the order erases the Trump administration’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the armed forces. This is problematical. Soldiers, sailors, Marines and Air Force personnel work and live in close quarters where privacy is at a premium, if it’s available at all. The addition of transgender individuals will have unpredictable effects on unit cohesion. There undoubtedly are branches of the military where the addition of transgender personnel will have minimal negative impact, and others where the outcome could be devastating in terms of mission.

Okay lets just stop here for a moment.

They make a number of damning accusations about what will happen to the military with trans service members, let us take a look at what the Military Times had to say about trans troops last year.

Two-thirds of troops support allowing transgender service members in the military, Pentagon study finds
Meghann Myers
February 27, 2020


A Defense Department-funded study published Feb. 18 in the journal Sexuality Research and Social Policy has found that about 66 percent of active-duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines support the idea of serving alongside transgender personnel.


Breaking down data from nearly 500 responses, researchers found that across demographics ― regardless of ethnicity, sexuality or gender ― more than half of every group also supported allowing transgender Americans to serving in the military.

“Arguments against integration have been historically disproven through research examining the integration of women, racial/ethnic minorities and [lesbian, gay and bisexual] persons into the U.S. military,” the study authors wrote, comparing the transgender ban to past bans on service for other demographics.
[...]
The Pentagon commissioned the study to look at troops’ attitudes. From August 2017 to March 2018, researchers collected 486 responses, starting with seed service members who recruited their coworkers and acquaintances, then expanding the scope through advertising with popular military blogs and social media accounts.

They were asked, “Should transgender people be allowed to serve in the military?” and given the options of yes, no, unsure and decline to answer, with the “unsure” responses routed into the “no” results.
[...]
That study found that being able to openly serve, without the pressure to hide identities, improved morale among troops and their units.

The administration trotted out the same charges levied against every previous minority group: unit cohesion disruption, cost, and inability to accomplish assigned missions. Just as everyone beforehand, when faced with those recycled fallacies, transgender troops were steadfast. Relying on data and the power of our examples, we invalidated the administration’s assertions.

When the services were being integrated back around the Korea War, on July 26, 1948, the president signed this executive order integrating the services the conservatives were out there crying that it would disrupt unit cohesiveness. When women were allowed to serve in the military the Republicans were out there with their tales of doom and gloom. Ditto when gays and lesbians wee allowed to serve.

The Republican American goes on to say…

Mr. Biden’s order also reverses a Trump-era U.S. Department of Education policy blocking federal funding for public schools that allow transgender individuals who are biological males to compete inhr girls’ and women’s sports. “Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports,” Mr. Biden’s order states. Apparently, the rights of children who value such things as privacy, personal safety, and fairness.
[…]
...Their concerns for privacy should be accommodated; for example, separate locker, toilet and shower facilities should be provided where possible...

First of all the days of open locker room is over, even when I was in college in the early 70s the locker rooms had individual stalls and showers.

As for safety it is the trans student who gets attacked! And fairness, the NCAA and the International Olympic Committee has looked into allows trans athletes to compete in their true gender and they found no differences at a young age and those who did go through puberty research found that after a couple of years trans women lose muscle mass.

Do you know what the major objections to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was? It was fear for the safety of girls in the bathroom!

The opinion piece quotes Abigail Shrier, do you know who she is? A doctor? A researcher? No, she is a conservative author who write for “The Wall Street Journal,” the “National Review,” the “Daily Caller” and other conservative media.

---

It was the Senator from one of the districts that the paper covers that proposed a bill cutting insurance coverage for us in 2015. The bill was…  HB 5193, An Act Concerning Health Insurance Coverage for Gender Reassignment Surgery read,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
That title 38a of the general statutes be amended to specify that health insurance policies delivered, issued for delivery, renewed, amended or continued in this state shall not be required to provide coverage for gender reassignment surgery or related surgical expenses.
Statement of Purpose:
To specify that health insurance policies delivered, issued for delivery, renewed, amended or continued in this state shall not be required to provide coverage for gender reassignment surgery or related surgical expenses.

The bill never made it out of committee and the senator didn’t even attend the hearing for his own bill.