Trump Administration Attacks LGBT Community On Three Fronts Over Last 24 Hours


Bake Twitler alive, then force feed him to his Cabinet of Despicables just before entombing them all underneath DC’s most disgusting garbage dump.
Meanwhile, notable civil rights pioneer Glenn Greenwald is somewhere still being VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HILLARY'S EMAILS and "McCarthyism".
Does Trump want anything but vast sums of cash for himself? Agenda-wise he seems to be for whatever people near him put in front of him.

@3 Greenwald has his whole life invested in how great Julian Assange is, so Russia basically doesn't exist for him except as a beacon of free speech
Nobody cares about "gender identity" outside of the extreme touchy-feel left. If my transportation director was born a woman but identifies as queerx with pronouns of "zim" and sometimes "zhee" I don't care and nobody else with anything worth half a shit does either. There's accounting for people and there's pining for attention and validation.
Shorter @4: "I personally don't care about gender identity, therefore I conclude nobody else does either."

And of course he misses the rather obvious irony of not caring about something so much that he feels obligated to comment about the thing he doesn't care about, just, you know, to make sure everyone knows exactly how much he doesn't care about it.
When Robert Conquest's book on the Great Terror was reissued, after the fall of the USSR, his publisher asked about adding a subtitle...he suggested:
I Told You So, You Fucking Fools.
@5 how are people being underrepresented or otherwise oppressed in that category aside from the general public not being forced to participate in their self-image with pronoun laws and other BS?
Shorter @7: "I think gender identity BS, therefore it's not oppression when I refuse to acknowledge it."

Sort of like saying, "I think feminism is BS, therefore it's not oppression when I refuse to acknowledge women should have equal rights with men".
@7..."forced to participate in their self-image with pronoun laws"

Oh man, those pronoun laws that don't exist are so odious.
The CHZA @ 7
This is not an attempt to “force” the public to participate. It is an attempt though to erase the existence of certain people by those who may not like them for whatever reasons, simply by not letting them to be counted thus” proving” they don’t exist.

Reponse from "gaysfortrump" 🤦🤦……
You're grasping Dan. You listed one (the first) the other two have virtually nothing to do with LGBT people. The 2nd the LGBT exec order is just a casualty of Trump not wanting to enforce ANYTHING on contractors, so LGBT folks are just getting fucked along with all other Americans, and HIV funding for Africa isn't an LGBT issue either.
@4/7, Someone who doesn't care wouldn't bother to comment. You're pulling that conservative mind-trick where you put the onus on trans people/allies for caring too much, rather than just admit to yourself that trans people make you uncomfortable.
@10 can we posit that a person is not a sexual or gender identity? Like, it turns out you are still a person if you are gay or a cross-dresser or just "too" effeminate/masculine or your trans, etc. You don't begin and end with your sexual life. You exist as a person regardless of if your particular subgroup is counted. I'm mixed. I've "never been" counted, or represented (and there's never been a hollywood release about the mixed experience, and to the extent that there was, it's about choosing one's black identity rather than a mixed identity. Even the media-left counts Obama and the Obama story in the context of him being black, rather than mixed). Would it be nice to be counted in such a way, to be represented? Sure. But from where I sit, those are what you might call "privileges". Although I'm straight, I probably share w/ many gay people the experience of growing up and fitting in essentially nowhere. The lesson I learned was that striving for that approval was foolish and counterproductive and the only approval you could count on was self-approval.
@14: Agree. The census is to tally the number of souls and an inventory of America's infrastructure. The government has no business knowing our sexual orientation, political ideology, or any personal information. Such information is not privy for public consumption.
@15 they don't ask about age, or gender, or any personal information? What's different? Oh, that's normal stuff?
14, 15
The government has no business yet still able to accommodate those who want to be counted.
Why not do so by placing “other (please specify) ______________” next to gender, like in some other categories?

Also, my libertarian friend tells me the constitution doesn’t call for a federal approval of marriage nor does it call for “one man and one woman.”
And yet we have similar arguments going on in that arena as well.
@16: Just think of it as this. Non-innocuous data should not be in the census.

Or do you like the thought of Steve Bannon doing database query of:
"SELECT ALL FROM USA WHERE Sexual.Orentation = Orientation.Homosexual AND Political.Party = Party.Democrat"
@17: If our country was still on a trajectory of being a sensible and enlightened society, I might agree with you.
No one's personal census info is privy to public consumption. Census data is only reported as aggregate statistics. The census requests all sorts of personal information and there are good reasons for doing so - they'll even explain it for you here:….

The fact that gay and trans advocates are asking to be counted, and the Trump administration is actively removing these these questions from the census, should be your first set of clues that there is a benefit to being counted.

@14 one group not being counted is a terrible reason to not count another one but it says here you're allowed to check more than one box in the race section:…
@20: The data still exists regardless of any aggregation.

All you guys have got left now is full on anarchy, in the streets until trump is impeached. South Korea showed how it's done.
@21, Well no shit the data exists but it's not kept in an open-access database that Steve Bannon or any federal employee can just pull up and query peoples' personal information or locate all the queer democrats (wtf dude seriously).
@23: Saving you willing to trust how that data is handled by an administration we despise is breathtakingly naive.

s/b: Saying you are willing...
Those who aren't affected directly by it don't care. That's called privilege. Our Canadian government did the same years ago. The intent is not just erasure but you can't help groups if they 'statistically' don't exist. Why provide civil rights to those people because statistically there is no demand. That group is gone. His whole plan is removal of civil rights. It's just LGBTQI people and minorities are first. You dont care because its not you. One day you will. Exactly how Hitler did it. I am amazed that the world sees him as a fascist but so many Americans are in denial. Do you not know history or is only American history taught to you.
@24, THE ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT HAVE THE DATA. The census bureau is a separate entity altogether and access to their data is limited to a handful of people. Simply being a government employee does not grant anyone access to any federal data, especially personal information that is a felony to disclose. Jesus christ this isn't Somalia.

To be clear, you are arguing the queer/trans advocates who want to be counted by the census are all naive - breathtakingly so! - and perhaps, in a rare act of compassion to a minority group most conservatives either hate or wish they never had to acknowledge exits, Trump has removed questions pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity from the census to keep our personal information out of Steve Bannon's grubby, evil hands. That's quite a hypothesis you've got there.

I know being contrarian is your "thing" but most of the time you end up arguing nonsensical and occasionally offensive points that make you look like an idiot and/or an asshole.
@20 some mixed folk identify as neither of their parents races rather than both :)

My issue isn't the counting or not - I'm a government employee, and the more you know the better. My issue is the concept that this is "erasure", as if the government (or any group, really) has an obligation to validate your existence through formal recognition. it's a destructive mindset (you could call it a "victim" complex) that, while common, isn't one that I think should be championed, nurtured, etc.
Raindrop, we'll say you're not concern trolling. We'll say you are a genuine white knight scared for your queer friends. This still isn't your thing.

So bring your big heart to your queer friends, and ask them if they want to hear you explain why you're afraid for them being in census data, and why you think that outweighs their benefit from visibility. Be prepared to explain why you think this is significantly more risky day-to-day than being socially out.

But. If they say no, if they don't think you're explaining anything they haven't already considered -- frickin drop it.
@26 - A friend of mine who grew up in Sequim, WA, was given a pamphlet --not a book-- for their US History class. So even that could be rather... limited.

As near as I can tell, TrumBannon desires to have different social groups in the US fight amongst themselves. It'll keep us occupied until they have time to organize targeted arrests of, you know, anyone who takes some sort of protest-leadership role. As they always do.

Not that Trump or Congress will listen to anyone w/o money, they never do.
@27: I'm not being contrarian, didn't you read @21? That link assuring privacy on a .gov website is about as meaningful as a ISP privacy statement.

No, this is not Somalia. But sacrificing our diligence for better stats is foolhardy.
Looks like they saw the polls and realized the entire Trump WH are going to jail.

Desperate Losers.

Just so everyone is on the same page, raindrop thinks queer people/allies/advocates who want the census to collect data on their sexual/gender orientation are fools, and Trump is doing them a favor by removing these questions from the census, to protect them from his own administration.
@32 - The... polls? You think ⊥rumBannon give a flying fuck about polls now? That's just 'fake news', doncha know. They care about power. And they have it. They've got the cops, the military, Border Patrol, Federal Marshals, and ICE; and a fairly rabid band of citizen supporters. They've just sequestered Ryan (who as Speaker has --had-- some power to remove the Pres.), if they manage to get another Speaker, he'll be much more loyal to ⊥rumBannon, we can be pretty sure.

There's a tiiiny possibility ⊥rump will resign, be impeached, or otherwise removed... but Jail? Ha! Don't make me laugh! There'll be no jail.
@33 - I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that I'm now finding myself rooting for federal agencies and mainstream news organizations -- both of whom, I am all too aware, cater to elite interests almost exclusively.

We are truly in Bizarro World.
For a look into the mind of a "gay for Trump" check out @ScottPresler twitter.
He thinks Trump will protect him, Ivanka is a feminist hero, the Democrats are importing Muslims to kill him, and Trump is keeping his promises. He made a video saying he is a black woman and if you say otherwise you are a racist and a misogynist.
@33: I'll go with my paranoia on this one. But you did make a case.

raindrop favors the authoritarian. Always.
I'm gay, but...something something Jobs...something something Immigrants...something something America.
Did I hit the important points?

"Gays for Trump" are like most Trump supporters. Voting for some emotional belief, ignoring their own self interest.
My bet is that Gays for Trump and Logcabin Republicans are nearly exclusively middle and upper class white men who would otherwise be very conservative Republicans on every other issue and just happen to be gay. I think they'd like nothing more than the GOP to stop discriminating against LGBT people so that they can join the ranks of white men who get to look out for their own smug self-interest to the exclusion of everyone and everything else, just like their fathers, etc. The cognitive dissonance must be terrible.

I think what happens to most people is that when they are "othered" by the GOP, they learn to see how other "othered" people are also facing similar discrimination, they learn to see other POVs and their worldviews grow. As the Republican party becomes safer and safer for gay people, gay white men will be more and more likely to just continuing shitting on women, immigrants, etc. I feel about gay republicans the way I feel about anti-choice women. It's a violent deep resentment, and it's a damn good thing I don't meet these people in real life.
I think Glenn Greenwald is being unfairly demonized and misrepresented here. I don't understand the current liberal hysteria around anyone who ever talked to any Russians. And while I totally agree with investigations, I also agree that we need evidence, and a lot of the evidence that is given (especially the assessment released- did you actually read it?) is fluff.

I think Greenwald is being pretty responsible and consistent. The fact that he's gay doesn't mean he can't focus on other things than LGBT rights as well. He's not a Republican nor a Trump supporter- in fact he's on the far left. So I don't understand what the complaints are unless you think that being gay and anti-Trump means that you can't be critical of the Dems too. Many of the Dems are total pieces of shit, and it's really bizarre to see libs suddenly believing and trusting the CIA as some unbiased ethical authority. We've gone through the looking glass.
There's a difference between discomfort and thinking something is stupid. MTF, FTM, obviously real things possible to affect normal sane people. If you feel that you identify as a man one day and a woman another and in-between the next, you are fucked in the head or a kid still figuring out they're just gay with weird tastes. If you feel that you need to be called a made-up pronoun, fuck off. Nobody cares and it does not negatively affect you to not be called "zim" or "zhee."
So. An anti worker move, that doesn't effect gays more than any others workers that needed protection. And an anti health Care move, that effects anyone who needs health Care. And he fails to expand gay rights in new ways.

That's a pretty damn weak attack. Almost like he isn't really going after gay rights at all.

Though he did succeed in perpetuating an evil economic system that fucks the poor. And he also made Dan sound like a republican from eight years ago, freaking out about every little thing Trump does.