Trump Lies to the L.G.B.T. Community

During his campaign, Mr. Trump promised to be a better "friend of women and the L.G.B.T. community" than Hillary Clinton. Now, as president, gay rights advocates are accusing him of betraying his promise.

Trump has been trying to roll back our rights from the beginning of his presidency. He has attempted to meet the demands of his conservative constituants who want to stop protecting gay people from discrimination.

In one day this month, 3 separate actions showed us that the Trump administration will use the powers of the federal government to roll back civil rights for gay and transgender people. 

Without being asked, the Justice Department intervened in a private employment lawsuit, arguing that the ban on sex discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect workers on the basis of their sexual orientation. The friend-of-the-court brief, filed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, was a striking shift in tone from the Obama administration, which had shied away from that question.

At the beginning of this day there was a tweet from President Trump announcing a ban on transgender people serving in the military. This surprised Pentagon leaders and reversed a year-old Obama administration policy.

Also on the same day, Mr. Trump announced that he would nominate Sam Brownback, the governor of Kansas and a vocal opponent of gay rights, to be the nation's ambassador at large for international religious freedom.

The constellation of events raised alarm among gay rights advocacy groups, which portrayed the moves as a concerted effort to limit advancements in gay rights.

"Yesterday was this administration's anti-L.G.B.T. day," James D. Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's lesbian Gay Bixesual Transgender and HIV Project, said. "Whether coordinated or not, to have it all happen on the same day certainly brings into focus the profoundly anti-L.G.B.T. agenda of the administration.

Taken together, the administration's actions are a prize for religious conservatives who backed Mr. Trump during the 2016 campaign but were far more enamored of his vice-presential pick, Mike Pence.

Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the ban and other moves were "the most cynical of dog-whistle politics" and an effort to "rile up the president's base as this administration flounders on health care reform and the Russia investigation, and as its popularity ratings plummet."

"Yesterday, he (Trump) went after everyone with a direct assault. He truly declared war on our community," said Chad Griffin, the president of Human Rights Campaign. "I promise you, this is a battle we are going to win."

Trump's Administration's Rollback of Civil Rights for Gays and Transgenders

The Trump administration signaled through three separate actions that it would use the powers of the federal government to roll back civil rights for gay and transgender people.

Without being asked, the Justice Department intervened in a private employment lawsuit, arguing that the ban on sex discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect workers on the basis of their sexual orientation. The friend-of-the-court brief, filed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, was a striking shift in tone from the Obama administration, which had shied away from that question.

Earlier that day President Trump tweeted and announcement banning transgender people serving in the military, surprising Pentagon leaders and reversing a year-old Obama administration policy.

The same day Mr. Trump announced that he would nominate Sam Brownback, the governor of Kansas and a vocal opponent of gay rights, to be the nation’s ambassador at large for international religious freedom.

The constellation of events raised alarm among gay rights advocacy groups, which portrayed the moves as a concerted effort to limit advancements in gay rights.

James D. Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project responded by saying, “Yesterday was this administration’s anti-L.G.B.T. day.” “Whether coordinated or not, to have it all happen on the same day certainly brings into focus the profoundly anti-L.G.B.T. agenda of this administration.”

Administration officials insisted that the timing of the three actions was coincidental. Wednesday just happened to be the deadline for the Justice Department to submit briefs in the employment discrimination case and Mr. Trump’s tweets about transgender troops, unexpectedly skipped past lawmaker’s ad the military brass that were considering the issue.

Whether by accident or intent, the result was a striking reversal from Mr. Trump’s predecessor, who repeatedly used administrative actions and legal arguments to press  for protections for gays and lesbians.

Taken together, the administration’s actions are a prize for religious conservatives who backed Mr. Trump during the 2016 campaign but were far more enamored of his vice-presidential pick, Mike Pence.

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a group that advocates socially conservative and Christian causes, applauded Mr. Trump’s decision to bar transgender people from the military. He said in a statement, the president should be praised for “rescuing our troops from the grip of the Obama years and restoring a sense of true pride to a military devastated by two terms of social engineering.

Anti-Trump Resistance Marches

The theme of gay pride parades around the country are dramatically shifting from celebrating gender and sexuality choices to a militant call to resist what organizers regard as oppressive societal and government forces. Parades will no longer be parades; they are "resistance marches." With Trump as President, the country, especially the LGBT community is in grave danger. It's as if a terrorist, not a patriot, has moved into the White House.

After witnessing the large crowds of protesters drawn to the pro-abortion Women's March on Washington, D.C., last January, one day after Trump's inauguration, Los Angeles entrepreneur Brian Pendleton had an idea. He wrote, "Floats and marching bands are nice when we are not at war. Now is the time we shake things up and take to the streets. The idea has caught on in many other locals. Planned 'Resist Marches' join several streams of protest and dissatisfaction coalescing under a single banner of "Equality March for Unity and Pride. This has become an international effort. The shift seems not be about feelings, not facts.  

There is a high level of fear in what is happening in our country, and even though we still have the right to marry and all the rights we had won before Trump took office, having our human rights stripped from us and going backward creates an underlying terror. That is where the sense of militant dissatisfaction with typical gay pride festivities is rising. 

There seems to be a need to return to the gay movement's counter-cultural roots. The majority of LGBT pride parades around the world were born out of protest. At this time there is a heightened threat level that is being actively promoted. Is this being promoted to bring as many people as possible into having a sense of personal threat to their well-being. I believe the threats are valid and too close to factual than is comfortable!

So what is the undefined threat? Who is the amorphous enemy? The ResistMarch.org Facebook page declares, "When any american's rights are under threat, all our rights are threatened. We are LGBTQ+. We are people of color. We are people of different faits. We are people of all genders and no gender. We are immigrants. We are dreamers. We are people with disabilities. We are parents. We are allies. And we are beautiful intersections of these. But most of all, we are American. Yet our rights are in jeopardy. Forces are gathering in government that intend to take away our hard-won basic human rights."

So, what do we resist? Who or what exactly threatens us? Many of us participate in pride events because of the alarms that are sounding and make impassioned pleas of resistance. But some who normally participate in these events are unclear on what they are being asked to do. They are even skeptical about the pride parades' co-opting by militant gay and transgender forces. 

The focused target is the Trump administration and resist marches across the country have focused on that. But is feels like the hate being directed toward everyone who isn't white, Christian, Republican, and heterosexual runs deeper and is older than Trumps chaotic administration. The anger this country has runs deeper than the threat of government, racial, and religious tyranny. It is thinly veiled in rage against each of those but many of us feel the hatred that is coming from a dark and buried place that most of us sense but do not remember how many generations if has been lingering or exactly what it is. Perhaps watching this anger and those fearful folks who voted for Trump and who are beginning to act the anger out will be the best way to bring into consciousness the true hatred that is at the roots of our American imbalance. Only then will we be truly confidant what to resist and what the real threat is.

Transgenders Banned From Military

·       President Donald Trump sent a blow to the LGBT community last week when he tweeted: "After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," Trump said in a series of tweets Wednesday morning. "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail." "Thank you," he added.

·        

·       Trump's decision came without a plan in place to implement it. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders did not have an answer on what would happen to active transgender military members but said the White House and the Defense Department would work together "as implementation takes place and is done so lawfully. "Sanders said transgender service "erodes military readiness and unit cohesion" citing health costs. She said the move was based on a "military decision" and is "not meant to be anything more than" that. Sanders said the decision was made based "on what was best for the military" and was made in council with the President's national security team.

·        

·       A 2016 Rand Corp. study commissioned by the Defense Department concluded that letting transgender people serve openly would have a "minimal impact" on readiness and health care costs, largely because there are so few in the military's 1.3 million-member force. The study put the number of transgender people in the military between 1,320 and 6,630. Gender-change surgery is rare in the general population, and the RAND study estimated the possibility of 30 to 140 new hormone treatments a year in the military, with 25 to 130 gender transition-related surgeries among active service members. The cost could range from $2.4 million and $8.4 million, an amount that would represent an "exceedingly small proportion" of total health care expenditures, the study found.

·       Trump's decision marks a setback for LGBT rights groups who have expressed concerns that the Trump administration could chip away at progress the community has seen in recent years on the backs of a series of landmark decisions in recent years that have included the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide and a repeal of the ban on gay people openly serving in the military.

·        

·       Trump's decision is also another setback for the transgender community following his decision several months ago to reverse an Obama administration policy allowing transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice. The announcement was immediately criticized by LGBT leaders and civil rights group.

·        

·       The American Civil Liberties Union called the decision "outrageous and desperate" and said it was exploring ways to fight the policy shift. "Let us be clear. This has been studied extensively, and the consensus is clear: There are no cost or military readiness drawbacks associated with allowing trans people to fight for their country. The President is trying to score cheap political points on the backs of military personnel who have put their lives on the line for their country," said Joshua Block, the senior staff attorney with the ACLU's LGBT & HIV Project.

Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Michigan, the vice chair of the congressional LGBT caucus, called Trump's decision a "slap in the face to the thousands of transgender Americans already serving in the military" and said it "undermines our military's readiness." "Anyone who is willing to put on the uniform of the United States and risk their life in service to our country should be celebrated as patriots, regardless of their gender identity. This short-sighted and discriminatory policy will make America less safe," said Kildee.

The President's decision flies in the face of his 2016 campaign rhetoric, when he said he would be a strong defender of the LGBT community -- and even claimed he would be a better president for LGBT Americans than his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

SCOTUS Neil Gorsuch on Marriage Equality and LGBTQ Rights

Neil Gorsuch was sworn in as the 113th Supreme Court Justice on April 10, 2017. As a nominee in Neil Gorsuch’s hearing before the United States Senate he said that the law making same-sex marriage legal was “absolutely settled law” but added “there is ongoing litigation about its impact and its application right now”. Beyond that he said he could not share his personal views.

When asked during his confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee if he would support the rights of gays and lesbians he said, “No one is looking to return us to horse and buggy days. We’re trying to interpret the law faithfully, taking principles that are enduring and a Constitution that was meant to last ages and apply it and interpret it to today’s problems”.

Earlier, Gorsuch was asked about the anti-gay views of his mentor at Oxford. Gorsuch said one only need to look at his record to see his views. When asked: “What about LGBTQ individuals?” Gorsuch snapped back: “What about them? They’re people.” “I’ve tried to treat each case and each person as a person, Gorsuch added, angrily, “not a ‘this kind of person,’ not a ‘that kind of person’ – a person.  It is a radical promise in the history of mankind.” When asked if that refers to sexual orientation, Gorsuch snapped, “the Supreme Court of the United States has held that single-sex marriage is protected by the Constitution.”

Both conservative originalists and liberal originalists have concluded that the 14th Amendment protects same-sex couples’ right to marry. But Gorsuch appears to disagree. In a 2005 National Review, Gorsuch mocked the court battle for same-sex marriage as a political fight dressed in constitutional garb. His comments on same-sex marriage itself are discouraging enough that it seems safe to assume he’s a skeptic of related rights and privileges. And his desire to accommodate corporations’ religious beliefs – even when they burden employees—raises the possibility that he would let religious businesses discriminate against same-sex couples.

Justice Gorsuch will probably not position himself as an openly anti-LGBTQ culture warrior in the mode of Justice Samuel Alito. But his more pleasant demeanor will not change the impact of his votes. And barring some kind of profound jurisprudential evolution, Gorsuch should be a consistent vote against gay and trans rights. From questioning the constitutional necessity of same-sex marriage to accepting pretextual defenses of trans bathroom exclusion, Gorsuch has repeatedly declined to defend the equal dignity of LGBTQ people. For a conservative, he may stake out some admirably unorthodox positions on the bench. But an embrace of LGBTQ rights will not be one of them.

Donald Trump was the first Republican presidential nominee to mention the LGBTQ during the Republican National Convention. It was a very small acknowledgement about protecting LGBTQ persons from terrorism by radical Islamists. This small mention left many wondering and uncertain about how President Donald Trump would treat the rights of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community. Two other hints was when Caitlyn Jenner was told by the President she was welcome to use the bathroom of her choice in Trump Towers. He also stated the issue of same-sex marriage is "settled."

The gesture by Trump from these statements could be viewed as more inclusive to the LGBTQ community. His choices of Vice President Michael Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions were viewed as troubling, because both Pence and Sessions have opposed LGBTQ rights. So, what direction will the Trump administration take?

Recently the Department of Justice withdrew its request that a Texas district court lift its stay in a case dealing with access to bathrooms for transgender students. In other words, by Trump withdrawing his support backing is removed for these transgender students. It turns out the Trump DOJ, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is not a friend to the LGBTQ community. 

This move may be a harbinger. Across the country, there are a number of lawsuits arguing that federal law should prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. During the Obama administration, most of these lawsuits had the backing of the DOJ, Department of Education, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Part of the arguments in these cases is that the courts should give deference to these agencies' interpretations of the relevant federal civil rights statutes.

Across the country, there are a number of lawsuits arguing that federal law should prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Is marriage equality at risk? Trump, in his pre-inauguration "60 minutes" interview, stated that marriage equality was "settled' under the Supreme Court's decision. But he has also promised to appoint justices who will overrule the over 40-year precedent of Roe v. Wade. Of course, justices opposed to Roe are likely to be opposed to the far more recent establishment of marriage equality.

The same objections that judges and justices opposed to Roe have made apply equality to marriage equality: They argue that the court has manufactured new "rights" that do not exist in the Constitution. Additionally, there can be considerable overlap among those opposed to abortion and same-sex relationships, particularly on moral and religious grounds. If a case gets to the Supreme Court with Trump-appointed justices, the court could reject marriage equality. Any judicial challenge could end up at the Supreme Court.

At present, the broader threat to marriage equality is not as pressing. The five justices who voted for marriage equality are still present, so, in the near term, marriage equality is safe. But, if one of those five justices retires or dies, it is not difficult to fathom Trump appointing a justice who would be happy to overrule.

It seems clear that LGBTQ rights will not be defended at the federal level. Those in favor of LGBTQ equality will need to defend themselves against efforts in states to ban the use of restrooms and to embrace so-called religious-liberty bills. The fight is now our own. We won't be able to look to this administration for help.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Evolving Transgender Stories

While transgender stories have become more visible in the media, there are many identities and terms outside of the two most culturally accepted genders — man and woman — that fall under the trans umbrella. And in many social circles, the vocabulary related to gender identity is unfamiliar or inaccessible.

Gender identity is an extremely personal part of who we are, and how we perceive and express ourselves in the world. It is a separate issue entirely from sex, our biological makeup; or sexual orientation, who we are attracted to. There are dozens of dynamic and evolving terms related to how people identify.

The following definitions represent some of the more current gender identities and the struggles to live them:

Agender: A term for people whose gender identity and expression does not align with man, woman, or any other gender. A similar term used by some is gender-neutral.

Androgynous: Identifying and/or presenting as neither distinguishably masculine nor feminine.

Bigender: Someone whose gender identity encompasses both man and woman. Some may feel that one side or the other is stronger, but both sides are present.

Binary: The gender binary is a system of viewing gender as consisting solely of two identities and sexes, man and woman or male and female.

Cisgender: A term used to describe someone whose gender identity aligns with the sex assigned to them at birth.

Dead name: How some transgender people refer to their given name at birth.

Gender fluid: A person who does not identify with a single fixed gender, and expresses a fluid or unfixed gender identity. One’s expression of identity is likely to shift and change depending on context.

Gender identity is evolving as it becomes more visible. The following are some definitions of experiences that are important in our understanding the complexity.

Gender identity: A person’s innermost concept of self as man, woman, a blend of both, or neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. Gender identity can be the same or different from one’s sex assigned at birth.

Gender non-conforming: A broad term referring to people who do not behave in a way that conforms to the traditional expectations of their gender, or whose gender expression does not fit neatly into a category.

Gender questioning: A person who may be processing, questioning, or exploring how they want to express their gender identity.

Genderqueer: A term for people who reject notions of static categories of gender and embrace a fluidity of gender identity and often, though not always, sexual orientation. People who identify as genderqueer may see themselves as being both male and female, neither male nor female or as falling completely outside these categories.

Gender dysphoria: Clinically defined as significant and durational distress caused when a person’s assigned birth gender is not the same as the one with which they identify.

Gender expression: The external appearance of a person’s gender identity, usually expressed through behavior, clothing, haircut or voice, and which may or may not conform to socially defined masculine or feminine behaviors and characteristics.