120

Top Democrats re-introduce trans bill of rights (www.washingtonblade.com)

submitted 1 month ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] lemmylump@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

We might actually have Republicans willing to vote on issues involving the Epstein files, and the reach and funding of ICE and these people are..(checks notes) are wasting time on something no republican will even look at.

These people don't want to do the work. They need to be primaried.

I'm all for trans rights but right now this is just a fucking puppet show.

[-] gnuthing@piefed.social 21 points 1 month ago

Trans folks, especially teens and kids, need to see someone in power fighting for them. It's necessary to have some hope to avoid suicide. So it is good in that regard

However for myself, I do not trust the democrats to actually follow through on any trans protections. It feels disingenuous. Why didn't they go to bat for us before the election? Why is newsom spouting anti-trans rhetoric? It feels like theater, remind the alphabet to not get too radicalized and actually throw off our oppressors

[-] compostgoblin@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Jayapal and Markey are both long-time progressives without presidential ambitions, so I actually trust that they’re sincere on this one. I don’t know anything about Jacobs.

Any centrists like Newsom who think they might get the mythical moderate Republican vote by throwing trans people under the bus? I agree, I don’t trust an inch

[-] ameancow@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If they're sincere, they're stupid.

This whole thing will just shine negative attention from state-controlled media about dems trying to do a terror or some bullshit, when we should have the entirety of the Democratic "opposition" doing what they can to remove these obvious criminals and thieves from power, then we can actually introduce legislation that has a chance of being written into law.

I cannot imagine what on Earth they're thinking. It's great if it helps some hopeful young trans kids who... closely follow Democrats... but the reality is this kind of legislation feels like a performance designed to make it look like they're doing something, without any actual plan to make it work.

I mean holy shit, we had the longest government shutdown in history over HEALTHCARE and the dems caved and the GOP raped us in the ass for it.

There is also a massive, growing sentiment against ICE and immigration enforcement that have brought out millions of people to march in the streets. Where the FUCK is the capitalization on this momentum? Oh yeah, same place they safely stored all the momentum from BLM and No Kings.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I cannot imagine what on Earth they’re thinking.

I can. They're deathly afraid of another 2024. In 2024, they were reminded that you can't take your base for granted. Kamala tried to appeal to moderate Republicans and through a lot of progressives under the bus. They're afraid of a repeat.

And a lot of progressives are at risk of severe demoralization if Democrats backpedal on trans rights. First, there's trans people themselves, who are about 1% of the population. But then you have supportive family and allies. And crucially, trans people are vastly overrepresented among Democratic party volunteers and nonprofit groups. Trans people often can't help but be involved in politics, as their existence is a political issue. If Democrats throw trans folks under the bus, they're at real risk of losing some of their most passionate and dedicated volunteers and donors.

This action is meant to speak to the progressive base. It says, "we hear you. We see you. We are not abandoning you to the wolves."

Does it have any hope of passing now? No. Is it a performance? Quite possibly. But then again, all of politics is a performance.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, even if these particular dems have a progressive track record, this act seems performative. Not only is it doomed to fail, even if it miraculously passes and becomes law (which would require the president's signature or else a supermajority to override), clearly the current administration isn't respecting the bill of right that we currently already have enshrined in the constitution, so what difference would it honestly make? There's a better time for it, and it's when Dems have a trifecta.

Right now, it just seems like virtue signaling to make up for the failures of Democratic leadership to organize effectively around resisting the maga agenda. It's damage control/PR.

Although, one good side effect leading up to the primaries is that it might force Democrats to go on the record either for or against it, which is helpful information for the public and may boost the performance of progressives.

If that's their intention, then it's a certified boss move.

[-] choui4@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago

I vehemently defend teans rights. Was kneed in the head by a cop at a protest for trans rights. But, I agree. Democunts are doing more identity politics **, rather than even attempt to stop thr fascism.

** trans rights are not identity politics. The selective weaponization of trans rights in this moment, is.

[-] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 2 points 1 month ago

They can do more than one thing at the same time. Every bit helps. Relentlessly.

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago

Kente cloths

[-] KelvarCherry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

As a trans person myself -- I want general improvements to quality of life. Don't single us out. I want to appreciate the effort here, but this is just putting trans folks in the crossfire.

For the last 3 years, the manosphere had radicalized young men on the idea that "women get all the benefits" because of woman-only scholarships, woman-only shelters, and laws from Bill Clinton's administration that specifically protect women from Domestic Violence. When I read this bill, all I can think of is some muscular tan bro talking into a microphone saying: The world takes care of trans people. We get none of that.

Don't make the rule that "you can't deny someone food stamps due to their trans identity"; say people can't be denied food stamps. Ditto for unemployment benefits, public housing, and (quoting from the bill): medical care, shelter, safety, and economic security. Pass laws for medical dignity and autonomy; not just against doctors refusing or delaying HRT, but for all general elective procedures and medications. Let the transgender news content creators explain why these are good for queer folks.

On top of that, maybe make it illegal to disclose whether someone is trans or not in court to prevent biasing a jury. That would be it IMO.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

General civil blanket rights protections don't work. We already have laws against sex discrimination. By any objective measure, discriminating against trans people is sex discrimination. It is literally sex discrimination to ban hormone treatments for minors. Imagine a doctor that will prescribe a cis girl E is she has low E levels, but she won't prescribe a trans girl E because of her perceived or actual sex. That is literally sex discrimination. Yet the courts are letting laws against trans medical care stand.

What is needed is explicit legal protections for gender identity and gender expression. These laws protect both cis and trans people from being discriminated against based on these factors. But you can't just rely on generic sex-discrimination provisions, as conservative courts have found absurd interpretations of the law to find that plain sex discrimination is anything but. You need to give the slimy bastards zero wiggle room.

Or for another example:

Don’t make the rule that “you can’t deny someone food stamps due to their trans identity”; say people can’t be denied food stamps.

This statement is nonsensical. What do you mean, "people can't be denied food stamps." Of course people can be denied food stamps! Bill Gates doesn't need to qualify for food stamps. When you want to ban a form of discrimination, you have to specifically define what form of discrimination is banned. You cannot just pass a blanket law that says, "don't discriminate against anyone for any reason," as there are countless valid reasons to discriminate against people. It's just not valid to discriminate against people based on innate traits. If I'm a restaurant owner, it's perfectly fine to throw someone out if they're rude or a belligerent asshole. I'm discriminating against assholes.

You just can't rely on vague legal language, as courts will always find a way to rule that marginalized groups for some reason don't qualify under the generic protections. This is why we had to pass laws specifically banning race, gender, and religious discrimination. More generic protections had already failed. After all, the highest law of the land, the Constitution, already has the Equal Protection Clause, and minority groups have found its protection to be incredibly weak.

"[Nor shall any State] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

According to the plain text of the Constitution, the Civil Rights, the Women's Rights, and the Queer Rights movements should have been completely unnecessary. After all, Jim Crow laws plainly violated this provision. Yet because the language was weak and nonspecific, it was easy for courts to find that black people could be denied the right to vote.

As far as appealing to the manosphere? You're trying to appeal to a carnival of liars and con men. The objective reality of your actions has little bearing on who they choose to target for their five minutes of hate.

[-] MonkRome@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Good policy opens up protections to everyone. Poorly versed politicians frame things narrowly because their privileges make them blind to everyday life.

[-] KelvarCherry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

I imagine you are right. Remember, these folks make $174,000 a year, and have taxpayer-funded healthcare </3

[-] minorkeys@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Why don't you spend your efforts ensuring rights are a thing that still exists, first?

[-] 3abas@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

They're using minorities as rhetoric again, and it keeps working. Someone downvoted you and will downvote me, maybe call me a Russian bot, because look Democrats care about us. Meanwhile they're doing nothing meaningful to stop ice, police, or war crimes. They love that no one is talking about the fact that they're fully supportive of starving Cuba right now, liberal voters already forgot about their enthusiastic support for genocide. "Look, they care about the trans community".

[-] santa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It is so sad this needs to be done.

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

For Republicans to vote down? Ok.

[-] andros_rex@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The DOJ has had a moratorium on pursuing any Title 9 claims related to gender identity for several years now. The EEOC has not been investigating claims of discrimination related to gender identity in several districts also for several years now.

These are specific items that need to be addressed. I’d like there to be separately pushed, because “Trans Bill of Rights” already sounds like it’s going to be nuked from orbit.

I had more than one job offer explicitly revoked because of my gender identity, including a federal one (cited Trump’s EO.) I sought help and did not find it. Living in a red state gives you zero recourse.

[-] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Glad they waited until it's borderline impossible to actually get it passed into law. /S

[-] altphoto@lemmy.today 0 points 1 month ago

Yeah, don't forget to vote democrat because they try to help in ways that are nearly impossible to cause a good outcome. And they don't send thugs to your house.

[-] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Listen, I'm not here to defend the Democrats. But if you aren't willing to do the simplest, easiest possible form of resistance: voting against the people building new concentration camps and passing bills that hurt vulnerable people. You're entirely useless in this conflict.

If that's the only thing you do then you're almost useless in this conflictbb

[-] altphoto@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago

I am voting Democrat, but not because of anything other than getting orange turd. Otherwise I still will never ever vote Republican anything. But what is happening is that Republicans are infiltrating the Democratic party. So you do need to pay attention to what their statements are.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Why not pass a bill of rights that will address material conditions for everyone, no need to be exclusive. Here is a great one from 1944.

Employment (right to work)
An adequate income for food, shelter, and recreation
Farmers' rights to a fair income
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Decent housing
Adequate medical care
Social security
Education

Or even just take this part "people under the law and ensure their access to medical care, shelter, safety, and economic security.” and ensure that the same applies to everyone, even if they aren't trans. I'd love if everyone, including trans people, had those rights.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think there's value to being specific about the rights of trans people because they are in an especially vulnerable position and are actively being denied basic rights. Yes we need rights for all, but to say "Why should trans people get special treatment with a bill like this?" at this moment has a whiff of the "all lives matter" about it.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

Black Lives Matter is a great slogan for social justice. The Black Bill of Rights is a terrible thing for a government whose purpose isn't racial apartheid. Either we are all equal under the law or we aren't.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

We can't rely on generic civil rights laws. We already tried that with the Equal Protection Clause, which provides a blanket ban on all forms of government discrimination. We already tried what you propose. In practice, when you want to protect civil rights, you have to ban specific categories of discrimination. Generic bans are toothless.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Laws are toothless if society doesn't care about them being enforced, and if politicians benefit from not enforcing them. Do you actually think that we'd be in a better situation if the Equal Protection Clause had an addendum that said "especially black people?"

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Sure. History has proven that civil rights laws that are very specific and explicit are much more resilient to legal challenge than broad ones. They probably should have been a hell of a lot more specific in the Reconstruction amendments.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Right. Over specificity in establishing rights and protections is how we end to with trans people being denied rights and how we have to argue semantics about who is actually protected by the law. The same thing happened for gay and lesbian people, and could happen again as protections for discrimination against some sexual orientation(s) are not explicit in some cases, and open to reinterpretation by bad actors in SCOTUS. Even if you cover that gap now, the it may not help the next group that falls along the fringe or entirely outside of those specific protections when they're targetted in the future. It should be written to be broad in protection and specific in exemption (where necessary), not the other way around.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Over specificity in establishing rights and protections is how we end to with trans people being denied rights and how we have to argue semantics about who is actually protected by the law.

This isn't true. It's the vague generic protections that are easy for courts to warp. Discrimination against trans people is a plain violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause and is a form of illegal sex discrimination. Yet courts have found ways around those. You need to explicitly ban discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Discrimination against trans people is a plain violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause and is a form of illegal sex discrimination.

You're kind of making my point. The right would argue that they're not discriminating on sex because sex differs from gender identity (and frankly, they'd be correct about that even by the definition of transgenderism). Had the law not been written to protect discrimination based on "sex", among other traits and categories, we wouldn't be arguing over what "sex" means in terms of the law and gender identity. That's what I'm saying about over specificity.

Like you said, it should already be covered under current sex based discrimination, but it's not. And so "You need to explicitly ban discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression." If the language had been more broad to begin with and not set such narrow areas of protection, they could already be covered by default if not explicitly excluded, so we wouldn't need to add more protections in the first place.

I'm not saying that adding explicit protections is bad in itself though, but it shouldn't JUST include the protections that are relevant now and leave open discrimination where we can't even predict in the future. It will just move the goal post and we'll keep playing constitutional whack a mole with bigots for generations.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Sex discrimination is already fairly generic. The only way to get more generic is the Equal Protection Clause, and that's proven completely toothless. Generally the less specific a protection is, the less real impact it has.

[-] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

I'm a supporter of Trans people but I this is such a waste of time and effort-- grandstanding for an fraction of a percent of the population while the constitution and standards of living are actively being eroded for everyone

[-] mlg@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Me looking for what happened to the original bill of rights

[-] devolution@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

We have fascists looking to kill people and the Dems want to play identity politics.

Now is not the time. To be honest, there may not ever be a time unless all of the baby boomers die, gen x gets a clue, and gen z males walk back Nazism.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Trans people were among the first victims of the Nazis. And here you are, continuing their legacy.

[-] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, and trans people are amongst those they want to kill.

[-] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

protecting marginalised people at a time when they're being directly targetted isn't "identity politics"

[-] devolution@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

You can't protect anyone when you virtue signal and lose the vote.

Just ask the Palestinians.🙃

[-] deltaspawn0040@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Hm, quick question, why do you think they would lose the vote...

[-] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Because magat assholes are doing their best to fuck over the election?

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago

Because you, and people like you, won't show up to the polls if this is the focus of the next election. That's what you're trying not to say. You're reminding us that the MAGAts are going to show up, but that you don't find this issue compelling enough to actually turn out on election day, and you fear that too many others feel as you do.

I'd like to see trans protections and support included in a Universal Healthcare bill that puts the entire medical insurance industry out of business. The Universal Healthcare aspect is why I'm going to the polls, and it would be nice if there were some guarantees in that to ensure that trans care is included in "Universal".

Universal Healthcare is what I will be looking for when I go to the polls this fall. While I'm there, I'll support every trans issue I can find. Fortunately, there isnt much anti-trans horseshit from the people who support Universal Healthcare, nor anti-healthcare horseshit from the trans community. Support for either is support for both.

[-] deltaspawn0040@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 month ago

It seemed like you were drawing a connection between attempting to, or at least signalling that they wanted to, protect trans people and losing.

[-] devolution@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Establishment Dems could care less about trans rights. They just think that they can claim the moral high ground. If they are sincere about this, then they will do it when they have a veto proof majority.

[-] WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 1 points 1 month ago

How will they ever get a veto-proof majority if they never have a vote before elections to show which ones who are against basic human rights?

load more comments

this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026

120 points (98.4% liked)

politics

29216 readers

483 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News