I'd much rather they try and implement actual protections for LGBT+ Americans than just do this performative bs. I don't give a flying fuck if there are pride flags at our embassies. What I actually want is to be protected from losing my healthcare, housing, and general right to appear in public without fear of harassment. There are already several states I don't feel safe traveling to, and that is an absolute travesty in what is supposedly the "Land of Freedom". What a fucking joke.
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
102 points (94.7% liked)
News
23300 readers
3504 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'd rather have both and there's no reason we should settle for less.
Of course actual protection are more important.
But social signaling that LGBTQ+ is accepted by society and the government is important, too. And preventing bigots who overtly are anti-LGBTQ+ from winning on passing laws like this is also important.
What specific protections that actually fall under the Executive's unilateral authority are you looking for? The Presidency isn't a kingship, and the federal government's authority to interfere with state laws is limited, particularly in the absence of a friendly Congress.
Re: Housing, discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation is illegal and you can file a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development if you experience it.
Harassment is, for better or for worse, a pretty high bar, and the President absolutely does not have the power to prevent people from being assholes to us. If healthcare is in reference to HRT, the administration has been heavily involved in pushing back against state laws, but again, there are constitutional constraints.
That aside, I like to think that the Pride flag flying at embassies is a very nice signal of what America can stand for at its best, particularly in countries where LGBT people won't otherwise see any kind of support at all. It's obviously not the same thing, but as a gay kid from a tiny rural southern town, it was always cool when I traveled to cities and saw Pride flags or saw Pride campaigns on TV as a way to know that not everyone was like my hometown.
I realize the article is about the white house specifically pushing back, but my sentiment is directed more at the entire democratic party. They had control of House, Senate, and the Oval Office for 2 years and didn't seem to put much effort into protecting lgbt people. What I see is usually more posturing and virtue signalling coming from them. I want them to defend us with at least the ferocity republicans attack us. The right will seemingly stop at nothing to take our rights away and the Dems only ever put forth token efforts to save them. They need to wise up and start playing just as dirty as the right or we will continue our slide into fascism and us trans folk will be the first ones they send off to the gas chambers.
I completely understand the frustration with Congress. The main obstacle there is the filibuster in the Senate, and the simple fact of the matter is that there was zero chance Manchin and Sinema would ever be willing to kill the filibuster over something like the Equality Act (something which Biden has routinely urged Congress to pass, I'd add).
At the end of the day, there's really only so much that can be done given the structure of the American government. The federal government's authority to interfere with state laws is quite limited, particularly under this Supreme Court, and structural biases in the government make it much much easier for Republicans to stop something than it is for Democrats to do something, all while Republican state governments can act freely at the level of their state. Oftentimes, there's isn't some magical hidden 'play dirty' lever that Democrats could easily pull but refuse to. Short of simply holding a gun up to his face, Biden literally could not make Manchin vote any particular way (and I'm sure he wanted to several times). Despite that, the Respect for Marriage Act was still a genuinely strong legislative achievement.
And to be clear, I don't mean to invalidate your frustration or say that any of this situation is right. But ultimately, there are reasons the mess is the way it is, and if we want to move things in a positive direction, we have to understand the rules and know what the available moves actually are.
Lastly, I'd add that the Biden White House, particularly the DoJ, has genuinely done quite a lot in order to enforce LGBT protections wherever they legally can, including routinely interpreting discrimination by sex to be inclusive of gender identity. Here's a general timeline:
https://www.hrc.org/resources/president-bidens-pro-lgbtq-timeline
My concerns exactly, when lgbtq folk are being persecuted in their home states for just existing, and all they can do is let trans people back in the military and allow the privileged folks at embassies to fly pride flags, well it's clearly more about apprarences.
It's for the rest of this funding year. Seems like a ridiculous add-on.