HUD rolls back protections on transgender individuals

[FireDragon76]

Because it's specifically at women's shelters where you might find victims of human trafficking, domestic abuse, or related crimes who might feel unsafe being housed with people with male genitalia.

Why would that be any more of a concern than cisgender female sex offenders sexually assaulting other women?

The false assumption seems to be that transwomen are dishonested and deceptive, and only interested in using their gender identity as a cover for raping women.

 

[variant]

The problem is more complicated - if Christian providers of services (or other religious providers) cease because they're forced to do something against their beliefs, even greater harm would be done. People of other beliefs can step up and fill the gaps and provide those services rather than demanding the few who are doing something conform to their beliefs.

What exactly are they being forced to do against their beliefs? They want to shelter the homeless, but not... Some homeless people?

Feel free to point me to the part of christian theology that says charity is to be reserved only for those christians have judged worthy...

 

[jgarden]

I don't see the issue with having transwomen at women's shelters, I really don't. Especially if somehow this is a "religious" issue, which doesn't make sense.

If transgenders were part of the Trump voting base, the President would have the rest of the homeless thrown on on the streets and reserved it just for them - Trump will be gone by the end of January 2021 but those conservative Christian groups that supported him will never be able to disassociate themselves from the worst President in American history!

 

[FireDragon76]

What exactly are they being forced to do against their beliefs? They want to shelter the homeless, but not... Some homeless people?

Feel free to point me to the part of christian theology that says charity is to be reserved only for those christians have judged worthy...

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Animal Farm, George Orwell

I've gotten tired of the Christian double-speak and hypocrisy finally, so nothing about this really surprises me. Too many Christians have a curious notion of love, indeed. It's the love of an abusive, manipulative parent. Just no, already!

 

[istodolez]

Legally, the issue here is the fact that these shelters are tax-funded. Private discrimination, while under attack in this country, should be fully permissible. Situations like this will inevitably arise when the government has its fingers in too many pies.

If I read this correctly it is basically saying "government intervention is bad, but government intervention is the only way to ensure that private discrimination isn't practiced". Which seems to be saying that private discrimination is OK?

Am I getting this right? If the cure for the illness is something that is unappealing we should just let the illness run rampant?

 

[Rachel20]

What exactly are they being forced to do against their beliefs? They want to shelter the homeless, but not... Some homeless people?

Feel free to point me to the part of christian theology that says charity is to be reserved only for those christians have judged worthy...

Sometimes I like to focus on tangent aspects of a debate, and this is one of them. I'm just not interested in the underlying beliefs or whether they are "christian". Please read my point again about the greater harm of charities shutting down simply because we disagree with them. This same argument would extend to trans-run charities, or Jewish-run, etc...

 

[Larniavc]

The problem is more complicated - if Christian providers of services (or other religious providers) cease because they're forced to do something against their beliefs, even greater harm would be done.

What greater harm?

 

[istodolez]

The problem is more complicated - if Christian providers of services (or other religious providers) cease because they're forced to do something against their beliefs, even greater harm would be done. People of other beliefs can step up and fill the gaps and provide those services rather than demanding the few who are doing something conform to their beliefs.

This makes some degree of sense. Certainly people should be allowed to help whomever they want to. But by the same token I would think that intolerance would make Christianity seem to be a worse philosophy. (Don't get me wrong, I'm more than amply familiar with the parts of the Bible where God himself gives permission to hate gays by seeing them as an "abomination"). But I would hope that Christians would see the corrosivity of that view.

But, indeed, one should be able to practice whatever hatred they truly believes is appropriate to their own belief system. However they want to hate as many people as they want to hate, so long as they don't actively hurt another (other than simply denying them charity etc. because of, you know, the hatred.)

In some respects when I see hatred codified as part of any given religion I immediately understand why religion is flawed. How someone can have a belief system in which hatred is not only attributed to "evil" but also a part of the "good" is beyond me

<Cue "Love the sinner but hate the sin"...a facile cover for hating the sinner but a standard.>

 

[Rachel20]

What greater harm?

fewer charities = fewer people being helped

 

[Silmarien]

Why would that be any more of a concern than cisgender female sex offenders?

The false assumption seems to be that transwomen are dishonested and deceptive, and only interested in using their gender identity as a cover for raping women.

I didn't even say that I thought that trans-women at women's shelters were sex offenders. I said that victims of human trafficking and domestic violence, due to the nature of those crimes, might feel unsafe around people with male genitalia. This may be rational or irrational on there part, but it comes with the territory of being a victim, and I don't think they should forced into situations where they would be uncomfortable.

I don't think that transwomen are dishonest and deceptive, if by "transwomen" we understand someone who has a genuine case of gender dysphoria. I am, however, not at all convinced that MRA types wouldn't start identifying as women as a cover for raping women. There seems to be an element of that already going on within the lesbian community, and I think it needs to be taken more seriously.

 

[istodolez]

Sometimes I like to focus on tangent aspects of a debate, and this is one of them. I'm just not interested in the underlying beliefs or whether they are "christian". Please read my point again about the greater harm of charities shutting down simply because we disagree with them. This same argument would extend to trans-run charities, or Jewish-run, etc...

OK, let's engage on the "greater harm" aspect. This is possibly true. Considering that the USA has as one of its foundational concepts "helping others is a sign of weakness" we devolve the systems to help others down to "charity" which, as so many have noted before, can not really meet the needs. It is an inefficient system. So you are right. Any little bit that are driven off the field because no one really thinks they should be allowed to pedal hatred is a loss for the overall charitable output.

That is not necessarily a signal of a "healthy society", but it certainly stands to reason. It also provides an impetus to remove religion from our society and certainly work in a communal fashion to help people (improve welfare and social safety nets). But that runs up against the American Religion of "I got mine, forget you!"

 

[istodolez]

fewer charities = fewer people being helped

The one good thing that would come from that is to show the desperate need we in America have had for generations: we need a more "community-based society"...one in which we actively care for each other with the "commonwealth".

So if charities run away because no one wants to see them polish their halos while hurting some people selectively then it will collapse the myth of charities taking care of all our needs.

 

[variant]

Sometimes I like to focus on tangent aspects of a debate, and this is one of them. I'm just not interested in the underlying beliefs or whether they are "christian". Please read my point again about the greater harm of charities shutting down simply because we disagree with them. This same argument would extend to trans-run charities, or Jewish-run, etc...

Why would they be required to shut down?

What we're asking them to do is to help people without putting their discrimination before their mission.

Or, you know, give us a good reason why not.

If they want public money to serve the public I want a good reason why you need to discriminate against part of the public on religious grounds. Since having it actually be part of your religious teaching might be a good place to start I asked someone to provide to me where in the Bible it says to discriminate against some of the poor...

So, I repeat, where are we getting the idea that religious community charities need to discriminate against transgender people in terms of sheltering them?

 

[FireDragon76]

The one good thing that would come from that is to show the desperate need we in America have had for generations: we need a more "community-based society"...one in which we actively care for each other with the "commonwealth".

So if charities run away because no one wants to see them polish their halos while hurting some people selectively then it will collapse the myth of charities taking care of all our needs.

The "good guy badge" needs to go precisely because it's used to cover those scoundrels in an aura of sanctity. And we've seen far too much of that in recent history with corruption and abuse in police departments. The same scrutiny needs to be applied to religious institutions, as well.

 

[tbstor]

Which seems to be saying that private discrimination is OK?

Am I getting this right? If the cure for the illness is something that is unappealing we should just let the illness run rampant?

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

 

[Larniavc]

fewer charities = fewer people being helped

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 would 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.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Trump Administration to Allow Taxpayer-Funded Shelter Providers to Ban
The Christian right are truly tone deaf if they think fighting for their right to make vulnerable people homeless on the streets during a pandemic is any kind of demonstration of "love".

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.

 

[Rachel20]

This makes some degree of sense. Certainly people should be allowed to help whomever they want to. But by the same token I would think that intolerance would make Christianity seem to be a worse philosophy.

Thanks for getting the point. Why not shutdown big pharma because all they really care about is $, and we won't worry about the wake of dead bodies, because we've done our "virtuous" part

 

[Hank77]

The bit that has a problem with gender minorities...

I have been following you for years and it's good to see some folks in the Christian community that can see through this nonsense consistently and realized the faux issues and objections raised are mostly just red herrings convering over bigotry.

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.

You know I just had to draw a line in the sand and I did that by what I saw in the story of the Good Samaritan. No one should be denied food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare no matter who they are or their financial status. That is what's on one side of the line.

The other side is more nuanced, my support could go either way depending on the many things such as how important it to a person's way of life, how much inconvenience will it cause them, is it conducive with a closely held religious belief, that aren't a matter concerning the other side of the line issues.

 

[Rachel20]

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?

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