So this is HUD, Housing and Urban Development, which is to help people find shelter. I knew people who were on HUD and how vulnerable people who need housing assistance are and this is just absolute cruelty. First, how can you call yourself a Christian or anything for that matter and claim to help the poor and needy and refuse someone who needs help because they're different than you. How twisted do you have to be not to see what it is? Why are we going backwards?

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/07/trum...nder-woman

The cruelty is the point. 45 wants to score with his base, the religious nutcases, those pretending to be religious, the homophobes, the xenophobes etc. All we can do is fight him tooth and nail and get him out of office ASAP.

(07-21-2020, 07:29 PM)Bhp91126 Wrote: The cruelty is the point. 45 wants to score with his base, the religious nutcases, those pretending to be religious, the homophobes, the xenophobes etc. All we can do is fight him tooth and nail and get him out of office ASAP.

I mean...is half the country really this screwed up. I mean, it really is beginning to look that way. I should think that most people would have awoke by now and "see the brick wall at the back of the stage."

Counter Argument: So, if you call yourself a trans-woman you should be allowed to stay in a shelter for sexually abused women.  Many women will be put off by this, fearing that a person with male genitals might rape them.

So who should accommodate whom?

(08-11-2020, 03:24 PM)kindy64 Wrote: Counter Argument: So, if you call yourself a trans-woman you should be allowed to stay in a shelter for sexually abused women.  Many women will be put off by this, fearing that a person with male genitals might rape them.

So who should accommodate whom?

By using common sense which I'm afraid isn't so common, clearly a trans woman that's been through surgeries and hormone treatments is different from some dude dressed in drag.

According to many activists, a trans-woman is a woman, regardless of surgeries and hormone treatments, and one with surgery and hormone treatments ought to be treated just the same as one without.

That's not my argument, you can look it up and find plenty of people standing on that point.

I'm just saying the issue has a lot more gray area than people want to make it seem.

CASE IN POINT: https://spectator.us/trans-activism-vand...vancouver/

Quote:On Tuesday, Vancouver Rape Relief & Woman’s Shelter (VRRWS) tweeted images of vandalism left on their storefront — a space used for meetings, events, and support groups. ‘Kill TERFs,’ ‘Fuck TERFs,’ ‘TERFs go home, you are not welcome,’ ‘Transwomen are women,’ and ‘Trans Power’ had been scrawled across the windows and door in black marker. ‘TERF,’ for the blissfully ignorant, is an acronym that stands for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist.’ This is, of course, a misnomer. Radical feminists are not interested in ‘excluding’ trans-identified people from anything. What they [i]are[/i] interested in is protecting certain spaces designated for women and girls.

There aren't spaces for trans-women... That is the big issue.

Well, this seems to be the relevant section of the proposed rule...

Quote:The 2016 Rule, § 5.106©, requires that individuals seeking access to single-sex facilities be placed and accommodated in accordance with their self-identified gender identity, expressly declining to adopt a provision of the proposed rule that provided that in certain cases, an alternative accommodation for a transgender persons and other persons “who do not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth” would be appropriate to ensure health and safety. Section 5.106© requires recipients to take nondiscriminatory steps as necessary and appropriate to address the privacy concerns of all residents and occupants. No funding was specifically provided for this purpose.

Finally, the Housing Trust Fund and Rural Housing Stability Assistance programs were added explicitly to the non-exclusive list of programs covered, and language was added to indicate that the 2016 rule applies to both recipients of HUD CPD grants and subrecipients, as well as those who administer CPD-funded programs and services. II. 

PROPOSED RULE 

HUD has reconsidered its 2016 Rule and determined that providers should be allowed, as permitted by the Fair Housing Act, to consider biological sex in placement and accommodation decisions in single-sex facilities. HUD thus proposes to allow shelters that may already consider sex in admission and accommodation decisions (i.e., facilities that Section 5.106(b)(3). 7 are not covered by the Fair Housing Act) to establish a policy that places and accommodates individuals on the basis of their biological sex, without regard to their gender identity. This will allow single-sex facilities to regain the flexibility to serve their unique populations that they have following the 2012 Rule. Nothing in the proposed rule restricts shelters from maintaining a policy on placing and accommodating an individual based on gender identity. The proposed rule leaves in place requirements from the 2012 Rule that shelters and all other participants in HUD programs ensure that their programs are open to all eligible individuals and families without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. Thus, a shelter may place an individual based on his or her biological sex but may not discriminate against an individual because the person is or is perceived as transgender. 

For example, under the proposed rule, if a single-sex facility permissibly provides accommodation for women, and its policy is to serve only biological women, without regard to gender identity, it may decline to accommodate a person who identifies as female but who is a biological male. Conversely, the same shelter may not, on the basis of sex, decline to accommodate a person who identifies as male but who is a biological female. A different shelter may choose not to make placement decisions or accommodations based on biological sex and there remains no mandate that shelters take biological sex into account.