Hi all. Remember that I said that as they age some people couldn’t accept the changes in society, so long for a prior time when they felt more comfortable with the way things were. I got some push back on that. Well Beau explains that phenomena far better than I did. He says that the republicans base their policies on the core age group of the party’s memories growing up of TV shows from 10 to 15 years before. He also shows how the attempt to return to a fictitious past won’t work, and that the rights attempt to deny the rights / existence of the LGBTQIA simply is doomed even as they try ever harder. Please watch the video, I watched it three times. Got more out of it each time. Hugs. Scottie
What is it with this time in history that we have such a hard push by one political party to remove rights and remove protections from individuals. For most of this country’s history, we moved toward expanding rights, to removing barriers and expanding opportunities for oppressed people. Now the right / republicans are all about denying healthcare rights for women and trans people, denying the right to equal treatment in services, public spaces, housing, and even in expressing publicly support for the oppressed. For example, taking away reproductive rights from women, and making illegal medically approved gender affirming best practices promoted by all the major medical associations. Allowing public businesses to refuse services to anyone they think is gay or trans or has a religion the businesses disagree with, such as wedding planners, restaurants, home renters, adoption services, and even restricting movies / books based on dislike for LGBTQIA characters or plots. Why do the republicans need to promote hate, why not just live and let live? Hugs. Scottie
Iowa Republican lawmakers have again proposed removing protections against discrimination for transgender people from the Iowa Civil Rights Act — and this time a key committee chair says he’s open to the conversation.
GOP lawmakers, who hold majorities in the Iowa House and Senate, have filed several bills over the past few years seeking to remove gender identity as one of the protected classes in the state’s civil rights law. But those bills have not received hearings.
This year, Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, has scheduled a subcommittee hearing on House File 2082, which would remove gender identity protections from the civil rights law and add gender dysphoria “or any condition related to a gender identity disorder” to the definition of a disability that would be protected under the law.
“I just want to hear a conversation about it,” Holt said. “I want to have a subcommittee and hear a conversation about it.”
In 2020, Holt used his position as Judiciary Committee chair to kill a similar bill that would have removed gender identity protections from the civil rights law.
The hearing, where the public can speak to lawmakers about the bill, will be held Wednesday at noon in room 102 of the Iowa State Capitol.
Keenan Crow, the policy and advocacy director for One Iowa, a group that advocates for LGBTQ rights, called Holt’s position “alarming.”
“Whenever you have somebody who’s willing to have a conversation about removing the civil rights of an entire class of people, that’s not a good conversation to be having,” Crow said. “Those rights should not be up for debate. Transgender people should be able to rent houses, get credit cards, get loans, go buy a sandwich, rent a hotel room, just like anybody else should be able to.”
The Iowa Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, ancestry, disability and gender identity. Lawmakers added the protections for gender identity in 2007 when Democrats held the Iowa Legislature and governor’s office.
People who fall under one of the protected classes in the civil rights law are protected from discrimination in employment, wages, public accommodations, housing, education and credit practices.
Holt said he believes transgender people would still have protections under Iowa and federal law even if lawmakers stripped gender identity out of the civil rights act.
“I think there’s plenty of other places in federal and in state law that would prevent discrimination,” he said. “Because I think we should all be opposed to discrimination based upon someone’s skin color or gender identity or whatever the case may be.”
Holt called it “an interesting concept” to look at specifying that gender dysphoria could qualify as a disability that merits protection. He pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court decision last summer that found people with gender dysphoria are protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Crow said because that court decision is already on the books, adding gender dysphoria as a disability wouldn’t provide any additional protections. But it could harm low-income transgender Iowans who can’t afford to go to the doctor to receive a diagnosis, they said.
“Now they don’t have any housing protections and a landlord can literally just say, ‘no, I don’t want you in my space, you’re transgender,'” they said. “And there’s nothing that that person can do about it. So this is an extremely dangerous, extremely harmful bill.”
Holt didn’t guarantee that the bill would advance beyond the subcommittee hearing, but said he believes it’s time to have a conversation.
“I still have concerns about this, but I at least want to have the conversation and see where it goes,” Holt said.
Stephen Gruber-Miller covers the Iowa Statehouse and politics for the Register. He can be reached by email at sgrubermil@registermedia.com or by phone at 515-284-8169. Follow him on Twitter at @sgrubermiller.
Same here. Ever since a black man became president I’ve seen nothing but an escalation in hate in this country. It’s like a huge swath of this country decided that anyone who is not white, straight, male and Christian is subhuman and need to have their rights taken away. I am disgusted with my country.
I hate hearing someone say both parties are the same. Tell me a republican that would try to stop wealthy banks from raking in billions in profits from the poor people? Those people don’t think both parties are the same, they simply don’t have a good reason to support theirs, so they have to claim the other side is the same thing. It also is why the republicans are so desperate to impeach Joe Biden. Can’t let tRump a republican be the only one, we have to falsely claim democrats are just as bad. Not that tRump was good or correct, but that Biden is as bad! Hugs. Scottie
This is the most important issue the republicans think they have to deal with. Trans and gay people / kids. Not kids being hungry, not schools shootings, not educations test scores or financing. Nope what bathroom a person can use and what medical treatment is available.
The republicans think they have a winning issue with their base because these are hate bills, socially regressive bills. But these are a driven minority fueled either by hate or driven by religious beliefs, possibly both. The majority rejects that hate, that bigotry, that demand to control how others live. These anti-trans bills mirror the anti-gay bills of the 1970s, and that mirrored the anti-race integration. It is all about resisting changes in society and inclusion of those who are different. It is about not progressing, instead wanting things to never change. But look at history, every generation advances society in some way, with causing more friction with the older generations, that forget they changed society of their elders also. Think of the bathroom bills and then think how white people did not want to share bathrooms or any place with black people. The bathroom bills trying to keep trans kids from public bathrooms and out of locker rooms is the same bullshit that I faced as a gay man, these same people wanted to keep me from using bathrooms, using locker rooms claiming gay men would sexually attack straight men. Sounds just like trans women would attack cis women. The bills about keep trans people out of sports are very like the racial segregated sports teams in the 1950, claiming first black people were inferior then also saying that black men would take over the sports winning over the whites. Does it all sound so familiar. It is the same hate, same bigotry, just repackaged to use against a new group for these people to hate.
Also these people just refuse to accept well known documented medical science / studies that show people are not made gay or trans, but born that way. You cannot force a straight person to be gay, and you can not force a gay person to be straight. Also while these bills forbid any mention of a non-cisgender or non-straight orientation, that requires the forced reinforcement of cis heterosexuality. Hugs. Scottie
The state is considering 41 other bills attacking transgender rights this year.
An opponent of one of several anti-trans bills testifies before the Missouri House Emerging Issues Committee.Photo: Screenshot
Lawmakers in both the Missouri House of Representatives and Senate debated a total of eight anti-transgender bills in a single day this week.
The measures, affecting trans people’s ability to access healthcare, bathrooms, and other facilities, and legal recognition of their gender identity, represent just a fraction of the 49 anti-trans bills Missouri Republicans have already introduced this month. Trans journalist Erin Reed described the latest wave of proposed laws as “a firehose of legislation that touches every aspect of trans people’s lives.”
State law allows the university to provide gender-affirming care, but it still refuses to do so.
On Wednesday, Missouri’s Senate Education and Workforce Development Committee heard testimony on S.B. 728, one of two bills, which would establish a “Parents’ Bill of Rights” in the state. Among other provisions affecting school curriculum, S.B. 728 “prohibits public school officials from encouraging a student under the age of eighteen years old to adopt a gender identity or sexual orientation.” It also requires school officials to “inform a student’s parent within twenty-four hours if the student expresses confusion about their documented identity or requests to use personal pronouns that differ from their documented identity” and to “obtain written parental consent before allowing a student to use a name other than the name provided by the parent when registering the student for school and before encouraging a student to wear certain items of clothing.”
Effectively, the bill requires schools to out suspected trans and nonbinary students to their parents.
The committee was also scheduled to hear S.B. 770, another “Parents’ Bill of Rights” measure that included a ban on transgender girls participating in school-sponsored girls’ athletic teams. The hearing on S.B. 770 was canceled, however.
Meanwhile, in a nine-hour hearing, the state’s House Emerging Issues Committee took up seven separate anti-trans measures.
Two bills sponsored by Missouri state Rep. Brad Hudson (R) target access to gender-affirming healthcare. H.B. 1519 would allow healthcare professionals—including, as Reed noted, pharmacists, desk workers, and nurses—to refuse to treat trans people receiving gender-affirming care. During public testimony, opponents of the bill noted that it would not only legalize discrimination but could also result in cisgender, nonbinary, and intersex people being denied medication by providers who mistakenly assume they are trying to access gender-affirming treatment.
This witness talks about how the same medications given to them (they didn't give pronouns, genderfluid) for their transition are the same ones given to cis men for hair loss, talks about the hatred the laws create. pic.twitter.com/3EH1eS9MLm
Hudson’s H.B. 1520, meanwhile, aims to strengthen and extend Missouri’s “Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act.” Signed by Gov. Mike Parson (R) last June, the law banned all gender-affirming care for minors but included an exception for trans young people who are already receiving such care, as well as a sunset provision, causing the law to expire in August 2027. H.B. 1520 would remove those provisions, forcing trans minors who are currently receiving gender-affirming care to detransition and extending the law beyond the 2027 expiration date.
State Rep. Ashley Aune (D) noted that the sunset provision was included in the SAFE Act so that lawmakers could assess the law’s “unintended consequences.” Hudson responded that there is already “enough evidence out there” and that he knows “these drugs are not good for kids.”
In fact, every major American medical association has acknowledged that gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, is evidence-based, safe, and effective for the treatment of gender dysphoria.
The committee also heard testimony on four bills aimed at banning transgender Missourians from using bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their gender identity. Proponents of such laws almost universally focus, without evidence, on the supposed threat transgender women pose to cis women in public restrooms. But during Wednesday’s hearing, opponents noted that, far from alleviating any discomfort, the bills would force masculine-presenting trans men to use women’s restrooms and also endanger trans women forced to use men’s facilities while doing nothing to prevent actual predators from accessing women’s bathrooms.
"Did you get this language from the Heritage foundation?"
Also, if you force trans men into women's bathrooms, you force people like this into women's bathrooms. A person could just as easily, if they want to use the "Wrong bathroom," claim they are a trans man if this bill passes. pic.twitter.com/sMBhYtFXg9
Rep Aune: "In a situation where you are in public, if a law went into place that required you to use the restroom as defined in this bill, would that leave you using women's restrooms?"
Additionally, one of the bathroom bills introduced by state Rep. Adam Schnelting (R), H.B. 2308, would legally define the terms “male” and “female” according to a person’s reproductive biology.
Similarly, H.B. 2309, also introduced by Schnelting, aims to legally redefine “gender” as synonymous with biological sex. According to Reed, the bill would end any legal recognition of transgender people in the state and would likely affect the gender markers on their birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and other forms of ID.
Schnelting testified that his bills would affect “bathrooms, dorms, shelters, everything” and might even “nullify sex-specific scholarships” given to trans individuals.
Democrats on the committee blasted their Republican colleagues’ seemingly single-minded focus on limiting the rights of transgender Missourians. State Rep. David Tyson Smith (D), who noted that Republicans make up 40 percent of his constituents, argued that people want lawmakers to address “inflation, grocery store prices.”
“People are wondering why we are spending time on this,” Smith said.
State Rep. Doug Mann (D) sounded an even more urgent alarm. “When it became no longer acceptable to be anti-gay in public, people moved to being anti-trans,” he said. “When you start to attack an already vulnerable group of people, you do not stop with that already vulnerable group of people.”
“I’m going to be honest, I do not trust that this is the end,” Mann said of the anti-trans bills. “Everything I have seen as a student of history, as a student from politics, as a student of government, tells me that it is going to go farther. Things are going to get worse, not better.”
Discussing the incredible speech given by academic, activist, and BET host Marc Lamont Hill at Saint Sabina over the recent protest (and subsequent reaction) to Joe Biden’s speech at Mother Emanuel AME.
Stephen Gruber-Miller
Des Moines Register
An opponent of one of several anti-trans bills testifies before the Missouri House Emerging Issues Committee.Photo: Screenshot
Scottie's Playtime 