HUD rolls back protections on transgender individuals

[FireDragon76]

That does not make sense. Why would a charitable agency (who surely want to help people) decide not to help anyone if they can't only help the 'right' people?

Unless there was some concern that, because of the discrimination by Christian charities if they did offer support to trans people who due to the discrimination would never convert to Christianity that they never convert to Christianity?

But that can't be the case because that would mean these charities only exist to exert a manipulative pressure for the recipients of such aide into becoming Christians.

I don't remember reading "Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed. Except the trans and the gays." in the Bible.

As others have pointed out, the conventional Christian "charity" that passes in the US is often just about polishing their halo's and covert proselytism.

The kind of charity talked about in the story of the Good Samaritan, on the other hand, has nothing to do with concern about sanctity (the Bible does have some good moral lessons in it, I agree with Christians on that point... but I disagree with the religion fundamentally as a religion, still).

 

[istodolez]

Yes, you are getting it right. Private individuals and owners of property should have the freedom to discriminate.

And we, as a society, should be OK with discrimination because "fixing it" would require that we allow the government to do what governments do (act on behalf of all the citizens), right?

Basically "discrimination" is the price we pay for freedom. (Until someone decides to discriminate against us! At which point it becomes intolerable and must be fixed, probably by government intervention.)

 

[Larniavc]

How is the "why" of it relevant to my point?

Because I can't imagine a Christian who would willingly not help anybody just because they had to help anybody.

Aren't Christians the good guys?

 

[istodolez]

That does not make sense. Why would a charitable agency (who surely want to help people) decide not to help anyone if they can't only help the 'right' people?

In some cases it is because they would lose public funding which helps them achieve their mission of helping only "the right people".

But that can't be the case because that would mean these charities only exist to exert a manipulative pressure for the recipients of such aide into becoming Christians.

I rather assume the 99% of religious charities hope for conversion through their "witness" but NOT as a coercive case. My entire childhood was spent in a town that had a Catholic-run hospital and we all used it...but at no point did I feel the "need" to become a Catholic because of it. It was just what the Catholics did. Good on 'em!

But I am also sure that some DO wish to force their beliefs in a "hostage type" situation or a "quid pro quo" scenario in exchange for help. I just assume that is the vast minority of the charity landscape.

 

[FireDragon76]

Because I can't imagine a Christian who would willingly not help anybody just because they had to help anybody.

Aren't Christians the good guys?

Not now days.

In the US, Christianity is a cultural political institution more than anything, a state religion that functions no different than the pagan religion of Egypt in that regard.

As Soren Kierkegaard said, a society where everybody is Christian, nobody is Christian. Meaning that if Christianity is accepted as normative, it will be corrupted, because human freedom, even the freedom to reject it, is fundamental to its true identity. And the Christian right has pushed hard for decades to make Christianity normative and to erode our established secularism.

 

[Larniavc]

How is the "why" of it relevant to my point?

If you can't answer my question, that's okay.

 

[istodolez]

If someone is homeless I don't think it matters what gender they are. But I have to ask...did you read the article? Because it is clearly biased fear mongering and assumptions.

That may be true. It almost always is in political discussions, but it does point up to the deeper problem that America has so relied on "charities" to solve social problems that we are left only to the vagaries of what the individual charities wish to do and are free to believe and act upon.

Further to the point: the GOP has long established their desire to offload more social safety net issues to the private sector. The argument then becomes: is this efficient and effective? The answer appears to be "no". But when the GOP has a long-standing desire to push public benefit off to private sources then bad things can start to happen.

 

[FireDragon76]

In some cases it is because they would lose public funding which helps them achieve their mission of helping only "the right people".



I rather assume the 99% of religious charities hope for conversion through their "witness" but NOT as a coercive case. My entire childhood was spent in a town that had a Catholic-run hospital and we all used it...but at no point did I feel the "need" to become a Catholic because of it. It was just what the Catholics did. Good on 'em!

But I am also sure that some DO wish to force their beliefs in a "hostage type" situation or a "quid pro quo" scenario in exchange for help. I just assume that is the vast minority of the charity landscape.

Alot of mainline Catholics and Protestants don't think that way at all, in my experience. It's the Pentecostals and Evangelicals that tend to have the attitude "come for the cookies and milk, stay for the salvation" type mentality.

 

[istodolez]

Alot of mainline Catholics and Protestants don't think that way at all, in my experience. It's the Pentecostals and Evangelicals that tend to have the attitude "come for the cookies and milk, stay for the salvation" type mentality.

I can totally see that, but it doesn't feel as "coercive" as "It gets the milk and cookies when it accepts the Word."

 

[Rachel20]

Because I can't imagine a Christian who would willingly not help anybody just because they had to help anybody.

I can't either, but it really is beside the point. There are always going to be Christians who misunderstand (or ?). I'm just against throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Larniavc]

Not now days.

In the US, Christianity is a cultural political institution more than anything, a state religion that functions no different than the pagan religion of Egypt in that regard.

As Soren Kierkegaard said, a society where everybody is Christian, nobody is Christian. Meaning that if Christianity is accepted as normative, it will be corrupted, because human freedom, even the freedom to reject it, is fundamental to its true identity. And the Christian right has pushed hard for decades to make Christianity normative and to erode our established secularism.

I think that my nominal Christian upbringing in the UK where Christianity was a quiet thing that people kept to themselves and would never dream of discussing it with someone outside of church (never talk about religion or politics was the watch word when I was growing up in the 70/80s) mean I find the bombastic Christianity of America where it is openly discussed in public in polite society is really strange.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Most transwomen I have met are accepted as women, so I don't see how its humane to exclude them from womens shelters just because of their genitals.

I have heard of biological women being raped by trans women in prison. So, I can see the liability if the shelter would allow a trans woman who still had their male sexual organs to be housed with biological women and a biological woman was raped by a trans. I agree that it is a complex situation.

 

[FireDragon76]

I can totally see that, but it doesn't feel as "coercive" as "It gets the milk and cookies when it accepts the Word."

Yes, that's a whole 'nother level of manipulation. It does exist, but it's pretty much confined to a small segment of religious sociopaths and narcissists.

But in all honesty, Catholics and mainline Protestants do have legitimate ethical concern about "rice proselytism" and recognize it as wrong.

 

[istodolez]

I can't either, but it really is beside the point. There are always going to be Christians who misunderstand (or ?). I'm just against throwing the baby out with the bath water.

This is a good point. In a society where we are left with so few options for social safety nets losing any charities would be bad. But it also means we need to get more groups out there working overtime to pick up the slack for the lost sheep that the Christian organizations feel are beneath them.

It can be done, but most secularists are probably going to suggest that is what our taxes should be for and what our government should do at which point we run up against the anti-government groups. It's kind of a circular firing squad.

 

[FireDragon76]

I have heard of biological women being raped by trans women in prison. So, I can see the liability if the shelter would allow a trans woman who still had their male sexual organs to be housed with biological women and a biological woman was raped by a trans. I agree that it is a complex situation.

Anecdotes don't make for good generalizations.

 

[Larniavc]

But when the GOP has a long-standing desire to push public benefit off to private sources then bad things can start to happen.

But think of the profits!

 

[istodolez]

But think of the profits!

Our prison system shows us exactly how profitable "public service" can be! We are knockin' it outta the park here in the US of A!

 

[Larniavc]

Our prison system shows us exactly how profitable "public service" can be! We are knockin' it outta the park here in the US of A!

I wish I owned a prison

 

[Silmarien]

Well, I wouldn't say that they are all faux issues based on bigotry. There are serious concerns from goodwill people I just think they can be managed within the shelters by separate sleeping areas and bathrooms. I think that way everyone can feel safe.

Yes, I agree with this. I think it would be another version of the sex-segregated shelters that already exist, and the idea that these places can't provide additional arrangements so that the needs of transgender people are met as well strikes me as absurd. There are alternatives aside from eliminating biological gender entirely as a category and abandoning transgender people on the streets.

What I'm not keen on is treating sexual assault and human trafficking survivors who might be triggered by the idea of sleeping in the same room as someone who is biologically male as if they are somehow bigots and oppressors instead of victims. I don't think it's reasonable to talk only about the needs of one oppressed group while completely ignoring a second one, and the fact that I see women who talk about this written off as hysterical and threatened with violence is really worrying on a number of different levels.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think that my nominal Christian upbringing in the UK where Christianity was a quiet thing that people kept to themselves and would never dream of discussing it with someone outside of church (never talk about religion or politics was the watch word when I was growing up in the 70/80s) mean I find the bombastic Christianity of America where it is openly discussed in public in polite society is really strange.

That's because American Christianity is less religion and more politics and has been for some time.

You know, the Archbishop of Canterbury (who identifies as an Evangelical Anglican) looked at American Evangelicals and said he couldn't understand how they would vote for somebody like Trump as a "Christian" choice, it boggled his mind. So the rest of the world is baffled.