Trans News/ Issues

[JDeere]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more...cid=spartanntp

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by JDeere

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more...cid=spartanntp

There is no way around the fact that the trans boy has an advantage because he is taking testosterone. If he was not taking testosterone, than he would not have an advantage.

The issue is hormones, not how one identifies when it comes to fair competition.

The positive about this happening, is that when the parents become upset that their daughters' competitor has an unfair advantage, the rule will change in Texas and transitioning boys will wrestle on the male team (and hopefully, trans girls who are taking testosterone blockers will play on the girls teams). When this happens it will be fair for all the kids.

I think it is nice that a "resident of Austin" and one of the cis girls said they welcoming of him playing with the girls, but it just simply isn't fair. It isn't good for anyone.

Thanks for posting this.

[JDeere]

He won the girls state title by the way.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by JDeere

He won the girls state title by the way.

So, you posted it, but you didn't share your opinion on the article/situation. What is your opinion?

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

So, you posted it, but you didn't share your opinion on the article/situation. What is your opinion?

Sorry I came home kinda tipsy from the bar, when I posted. I think it's an unfair advantage for him to wrestle against girls, but I'm glad to see a trans kid win state titles yet it should have been against his fellow guys.

Only thing that can happen now is that he can change the stigma about trans people and possibly change the law.

[Jesse]

A school board outside of Wichita, Kansas, voted this week to ban transgender students from bathrooms that match their gender identity, saying they took license for the new rule from the Trump administration. “Trump was basically leaving it up to us,” Tina Prunier, a member of the Derby Board of Education, told BuzzFeed News in explaining her vote in favor of the rule. “I thought it would be best for the district overall.”

But lawyers for progressive LGBT groups countered that regardless of the federal government’s position, private citizens can still sue the district if a transgender student comes forward with a complaint. “We are standing ready to file lawsuits against school districts like this one that are discriminating against transgender students,” Demoya Gordon, a staff attorney for Lambda Legal, told BuzzFeed News. “There is no staying out of this issue. This is a federal civil-rights issue. This district has exposed itself to a lawsuit.”

To get context for the school board’s vote on Monday, you must rewind to last year. At the time, the district had the same ban on transgender student restroom access it adopted this week — for example, transgender girls couldn’t use the girls restroom.

But in May 2016, the Obama administration announced that all federally funded schools must accommodate transgender students in facilities that match their gender identity. That guidance was based on an interpretation of Title IX, a civil rights law that bans sex discrimination in schools. The Derby Board of Education, in turn, voted to conform to that federal policy — leading some parents to complain.

Cut to 2017: The Trump administration last week withdrew the Obama-era rule, saying that states and local jurisdictions could decide for themselves.
Many states and district decided to keep their trangender-friendly rules in place. But the Derby Board of Education voted 5-2 this week to go back to their original procedure for transgender students. They voted on how they would handle the matter — to ban transgender students from restrooms that match their gender and attempt to offer them other accommodations — even though it was not codified in a written document.

In an interview, Prunier had a hard time explaining her vote to block transgender students from certain restrooms, other than saying that Trump allowed the district to do so, and that it was the district’s best interest.
“To be quite honest, it’s not something I have gone over in my mind,” she replied when asked why she said it was best for her district. “It’s not something I feel strongly one way or another about — their personal rights or how they wish to be.”con't...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominichold...epY#.syX1b5KNE

I truly hope that Prunier reads this article she is quoted in, especially the part I bolded, and does some serious thinking/soul searching. I also hope that one of the students does come forth and sue in order to have their rights reestablished. It sucks big time that we are still having to fight tooth and nail to be granted simple human dignities that most others take for granted! I'm so pissed right now!

[Jesse]

Supreme Court sends Grimm transgender case back to lower court in light of new federal guidance

The U.S. Supreme Court is sending the case of 17-year-old Gavin Grimm back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals after President Donald Trump overturned a federal policy on transgender students' access to school restrooms.

The high court announced its decision to vacate the case and remand it back to the lower court on Monday along with several other orders from its Friday conference last week, according to the SCOTUS blog, a law blog written by attorneys who follow the Supreme Court closely.

The U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on March 28.

“Nothing about today’s action changes the meaning of the law. Title IX and the Constitution protect Gavin and other transgender students from discrimination,” said attorney Joshuan Block with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Grimm in the case against the Gloucester County School Board.

“While we’re disappointed that the Supreme Court will not be hearing Gavin’s case this term, the overwhelming level of support shown for Gavin and trans students by people across the country throughout this process shows that the American people have already moved in the right direction and that the rights of trans people cannot be ignored,” Block said in a news release from the ACLU. “This is a detour, not the end of the road, and we’ll continue to fight for Gavin and other transgender people to ensure that they are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.”

On Feb. 22 the Trump Administration withdrew previous federal guidance that said school divisions must allow transgender students to use the bathroom matching their gender identity.

The court requested letters from both sides of the case in light of the Trump administration’s new guidance, which now leaves it up to states and local school divisions to establish policies regarding transgender restroom use.

The ACLU and the Gloucester County School Board asked the court to let the case proceed. The School Board also asked that the case be postponed to allow the federal government to file a brief.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond relied on the previous guidance from the Obama administration when it voted 2-1 in 2016 in Grimm’s favor to send the case back to federal Judge Robert Doumar with the U.S. Eastern District Court, telling him to reconsider the case.

In fall 2015, Doumar dismissed the claim in the suit that the school division’s restroom-use policy passed in December 2014 that requires students to use the restroom associated with their physical sex or single-stall private unisex restrooms violated Title IX. Doumar did not rule on the 14th Amendment claim in the lawsuit.

In a statement on Monday the Gloucester County School Board said, “the Board looks forward to explaining why its commonsense restroom and locker room policy is legal under the Constitution and federal law.”

Gloucester schools filed a petition last August asking the Supreme Court to determine if it is violating federal law by refusing to allow Grimm access to the boys’ restrooms. In addition to the question about the Title IX interpretation, the petition also questioned the previous guidance issued under the Obama administration.

Grimm, a senior at Gloucester High School, was born female but identifies as male. The lawsuit, filed on his behalf by the ACLU, would have been the first transgender restroom rights case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/glouc...306-story.html

[StoicStone]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

There is no way around the fact that the trans boy has an advantage because he is taking testosterone. If he was not taking testosterone, than he would not have an advantage.

The issue is hormones, not how one identifies when it comes to fair competition.

The positive about this happening, is that when the parents become upset that their daughters' competitor has an unfair advantage, the rule will change in Texas and transitioning boys will wrestle on the male team (and hopefully, trans girls who are taking testosterone blockers will play on the girls teams). When this happens it will be fair for all the kids.

I think it is nice that a "resident of Austin" and one of the cis girls said they welcoming of him playing with the girls, but it just simply isn't fair. It isn't good for anyone.

Thanks for posting this.

Please forgive my ignorance on the subject of hormone therapy, but I fail to see how testosterone in and of itself would give someone an unfair advantage. I am old and there was no girls wrestling team when I went to high school, but if there were at 5' 11" and 180 lbs I could have easily beaten most girls and boys in my weight class, as I had a very muscular upper torso ,without testosterone therapy.
Greco Roman wrestling is more about upper body strength and center of gravity. (I am assuming that anyone wrestling is being aggressive, it is not a passive sport.)
Please enlighten me as to how the testosterone gave an advantage.

That being said I do believe that transgendered youth should be participating on the teams of their gender identity, not the gender on their birth certificates.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by StoicStone

Please forgive my ignorance on the subject of hormone therapy, but I fail to see how testosterone in and of itself would give someone an unfair advantage. I am old and there was no girls wrestling team when I went to high school, but if there were at 5' 11" and 180 lbs I could have easily beaten most girls and boys in my weight class, as I had a very muscular upper torso ,without testosterone therapy.
Greco Roman wrestling is more about upper body strength and center of gravity. (I am assuming that anyone wrestling is being aggressive, it is not a passive sport.)
Please enlighten me as to how the testosterone gave an advantage.

That being said I do believe that transgendered youth should be participating on the teams of their gender identity, not the gender on their birth certificates.

The issue isn't whether or not some girls can beat some boys. Of course, they can, and do...in all sports.

However, natal men's bodies have more testosterone than natal women's bodies. All things being equal, they are naturally stronger (testosterone is responsible for the increase in muscle mass men have).

There is no difference between a female bodied person on testosterone and a male bodied person who produces their own testosterone. The levels of testosterone in the natal male and in the trans male, are the same. The amount of testosterone prescribed to a trans man is the amount that will mimic the same testosterone levels of natal males of the same age.


P.S. Please consider not using the term "transgendered". People are transgender, they are not "transgendered".

[StoicStone]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

The issue isn't whether or not some girls can beat some boys. Of course, they can, and do...in all sports.

However, natal men's bodies have more testosterone than natal women's bodies. All things being equal, they are naturally stronger (testosterone is responsible for the increase in muscle mass men have).

There is no difference between a female bodied person on testosterone and a male bodied person who produces their own testosterone. The levels of testosterone in the natal male and in the trans male, are the same. The amount of testosterone prescribed to a trans man is the amount that will mimic the same testosterone levels of natal males of the same age.


P.S. Please consider not using the term "transgendered". People are transgender, they are not "transgendered".

I see. I understand that testosterone would allow someone to bulk up more muscle than a cisgender girl, however that muscle mass would have to build over time, so whether or not an actual advantage was to be had would be dependent on how long they had been on T, how much resistance training the youth did, how large the transgender youth was to begin with, etc.
My apologies for the error in term, as I said I am not super familiar with the subject in general, and am trying to understand.
As I said, I do agree that the youth should be competing with the other boys, I was just curious if the specific case actually involved an advantage to the degree that he title should be taken away. (I was not successful at gaining the information I felt was necessary to actually make a judgement call in this specific case)
Many cisgender girls use organic dietary supplements that allow them to gain larger muscle mass. I have heard of cases where their titles were challenged for unfair advantage, but no of none where someone's title was stripped. (This does not include steroid use, that is always a no, no and cause for disqualification from competition and removal of any titles gained)
Anyway, I am wondering if use of such dietary supplements should also be considered unfair and be banned.

My major concern is that people may try to exclude transgender youth from competition entirely (which would be completely wrong) instead of considering each case individually. The best and obvious solution is to allow transgender youth to compete with the appropriate biological gender (i.e. FtM with biological males, and MtF with biological girls)
Note: If my terminology is incorrect or offensive, please let me know as I have no desire to offend, just to gain understanding.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by StoicStone

I see. I understand that testosterone would allow someone to bulk up more muscle than a cisgender girl, however that muscle mass would have to build over time, so whether or not an actual advantage was to be had would be dependent on how long they had been on T, how much resistance training the youth did, how large the transgender youth was to begin with, etc.
My apologies for the error in term, as I said I am not super familiar with the subject in general, and am trying to understand.
As I said, I do agree that the youth should be competing with the other boys, I was just curious if the specific case actually involved an advantage to the degree that he title should be taken away. (I was not successful at gaining the information I felt was necessary to actually make a judgement call in this specific case)
Many cisgender girls use organic dietary supplements that allow them to gain larger muscle mass. I have heard of cases where their titles were challenged for unfair advantage, but no of none where someone's title was stripped. (This does not include steroid use, that is always a no, no and cause for disqualification from competition and removal of any titles gained)
Anyway, I am wondering if use of such dietary supplements should also be considered unfair and be banned.

My major concern is that people may try to exclude transgender youth from competition entirely (which would be completely wrong) instead of considering each case individually. The best and obvious solution is to allow transgender youth to compete with the appropriate biological gender (i.e. FtM with biological males, and MtF with biological girls)
Note: If my terminology is incorrect or offensive, please let me know as I have no desire to offend, just to gain understanding.

Hi, Stoicstone. I don't have time to respond right now, but I just wanted to quickly tell you that you are on point with your language. I am glad you did not take offense to my correction and appreciate your openness to information on this topic. Of course, i find all things trans related to be interesting!

I will circle back and respond tonight.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by StoicStone

I see. I understand that testosterone would allow someone to bulk up more muscle than a cisgender girl, however that muscle mass would have to build over time, so whether or not an actual advantage was to be had would be dependent on how long they had been on T, how much resistance training the youth did, how large the transgender youth was to begin with, etc.
My apologies for the error in term, as I said I am not super familiar with the subject in general, and am trying to understand.
As I said, I do agree that the youth should be competing with the other boys, I was just curious if the specific case actually involved an advantage to the degree that he title should be taken away. (I was not successful at gaining the information I felt was necessary to actually make a judgement call in this specific case)
Many cisgender girls use organic dietary supplements that allow them to gain larger muscle mass. I have heard of cases where their titles were challenged for unfair advantage, but no of none where someone's title was stripped. (This does not include steroid use, that is always a no, no and cause for disqualification from competition and removal of any titles gained)
Anyway, I am wondering if use of such dietary supplements should also be considered unfair and be banned.

My major concern is that people may try to exclude transgender youth from competition entirely (which would be completely wrong) instead of considering each case individually. The best and obvious solution is to allow transgender youth to compete with the appropriate biological gender (i.e. FtM with biological males, and MtF with biological girls)
Note: If my terminology is incorrect or offensive, please let me know as I have no desire to offend, just to gain understanding.

The trans boy wanted to wrestle on the boys' team and they would not allow him to.

I don't know how to explain the issue of strength any better than I have.

If you believe that a 17 year old boy has an advantage over a 17 year old girl, than this trans boy (who is taking testosterone), would have the same advantage.

I believe that those who have testosterone as the primary hormone flowing in their bodies (cis males, and trans males who are on testosterone), should compete against each other. I believe that people who do not have testosterone as their primary hormone (cis females, and trans female who are on testosterone blockers), should compete against each other. I believe that if a trans boy, who is NOT on testosterone wants to compete with the boys, that is his right. He is coming from a place of disadvantage, not advantage. I would have difficulty with a trans girl competing against cis girls if she was not taking a testosterone blocker. I believe that competition should start from a place of being on equal footing, not with one person having an advantage over another.

Supplements that supposedly increase testosterone do not work in cis women. They only work in men.

[StoicStone]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

The trans boy wanted to wrestle on the boys' team and they would not allow him to.

I don't know how to explain the issue of strength any better than I have.

If you believe that a 17 year old boy has an advantage over a 17 year old girl, than this trans boy (who is taking testosterone), would have the same advantage.

I believe that those who have testosterone as the primary hormone flowing in their bodies (cis males, and trans males who are on testosterone), should compete against each other. I believe that people who do not have testosterone as their primary hormone (cis females, and trans female who are on testosterone blockers), should compete against each other. I believe that if a trans boy, who is NOT on testosterone wants to compete with the boys, that is his right. He is coming from a place of disadvantage, not advantage. I would have difficulty with a trans girl competing against cis girls if she was not taking a testosterone blocker. I believe that competition should start from a place of being on equal footing, not with one person having an advantage over another.

Supplements that supposedly increase testosterone do not work in cis women. They only work in men.

I agree that transgender youth should compete with the biological gender they identify with.
cisgender males have their entire life to build their muscle mass, so they have a clear advantage. The only real way to make 1 on 1 sports fair would be to measure muscle mass, and adjust the divisions of competition on that basis instead of weight, pero that is not likely to happen (people resist any kind of change).

I thank you for your patience and understanding and for the knowledge you have imparted to me. I have found another site that will give me more specific information on my grandchild's situation (MtF). I will bother you no further. I apologize for the intrusion into your conversation. Again, thank you very much for the insight.

[DapperButch]

I don't know why I didn't think this would really happen....

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2017...an-now-policy/

Though the policy—called “A Guidance Policy for Open Transgender Service Phase Out”—has not yet been made public, sources familiar with the planning said it would encourage early retirement, usher out any enlisted personnel after their contract is up, and would fire trans officers up for promotion. Basically, said a source, “the administration wants to get rid of transgender service members as fast as they can.”

No one yet knows what will happen to the service members currently fighting in combat. The new policy does allow trans service members to continue serving but apparently does not offer any protection from harassment or other efforts to get them to quit.

[Kätzchen]

Dapper???? Did you see the early morning news headline that a terribly tragedy occurred yesterday? An Transgendered girl was brutally beaten to death and their eyes were gouged out too!

Just horrific, the hate that's out there!

LINK:

http://nypost.com/2017/09/27/sheriff...-a-hate-crime/

[DapperButch]

I am not holding my breath that this will "stick", but it is a good sign...

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a White House policy barring military service by transgender troops, ruling that it was based on “disapproval of transgender people generally.”

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia found the administration’s justification for the ban, which was set to take effect in March 2018, to be suspect and likely unconstitutional. She ruled that the military’s current policy should remain in place.

“There is absolutely no support for the claim that the ongoing service of transgender people would have any negative effective on the military at all,” the judge wrote in a strongly worded, 76-page ruling. “In fact, there is considerable evidence that it is the discharge and banning of such individuals that would have such effects.”

Judge Kollar-Kotelly noted that the White House’s proposed policies likely violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution, writing that “a number of factors — including the sheer breadth of the exclusion ordered by the directives, the unusual circumstances surrounding the President’s announcement of them, the fact that the reasons given for them do not appear to be supported by any facts, and the recent rejection of those reasons by the military itself — strongly suggest that Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim is meritorious.”

Monday’s ruling was seen as an encouraging step for supporters. It stops a plan to discharge all transgender troops, allows current transgender troops to re-enlist and permits transgender recruits to join the military starting in January.

“She basically wiped the slate clean,” said Shannon Minter, a lawyer at the National Center for Lesbian Rights who represented the plaintiffs, adding that while the ruling could be appealed, he was confident that it effectively marked the end of the ban because the judge said it violated the Constitution.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not impose an injunction on the ban on sex reassignment surgery because she said it did not apply to any of the plaintiffs. But the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that in blocking the entire policy, the ruling effectively shelved the ban on sex reassignment surgery as well.

President Trump announced in a series of Twitter messages in July that American forces could not afford the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” of transgender troops, and said “the United States Government will not accept or allow them to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” A presidential memorandum released in August required all transgender service members to be discharged starting in March 2018.

The announcement blindsided many in the military, which had been moving ahead with plans to integrate transgender troops, based on a 2016 study commissioned by the military that found that allowing transgender people to serve openly would “have minimal impact on readiness and health care costs” for the Pentagon. It estimated that health care costs would rise $2.4 million to $8.4 million a year, representing an almost unnoticeable 0.04 to 0.13 percent increase in spending. The study also projected “little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness or readiness.”

Civil rights groups immediately sued the administration on behalf of transgender service members, arguing that the ban was discriminatory and violated their constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the law. A number of lawsuits are still pending.

The government had asked that the case be dismissed, but Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied the motion, writing that while “perhaps compelling in the abstract,” the government’s arguments for dismissal “wither away under scrutiny.” Judge Kollar-Kotelly was nominated to a lower court in the District of Columbia by President Ronald Reagan and was named to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton.

The suit was filed by GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders and the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of five unnamed transgender women serving in the Coast Guard, Army and Air Force. Many of the women had served for years as men and had been deployed to war zones before coming out to commanders when the ban was lifted in 2016. One is a few years from retirement, according to court documents. Another told her commander she wanted to keep serving, but would resign if the military moved to forcibly discharge her.

Big, huge news today,” said Lt. Cmdr. Blake Dremann, a Navy supply corps officer who is transgender and is the director of Sparta, an L.G.B.T. military group with more than 650 active-duty members. “A lot of people’s lives were put on hold. They thought their careers were ending. This means we can continue to serve with honor, as we have been doing.”

Petty Officer Eva Kerry, 24, who is transgender and is training to operate nuclear reactors, said the ruling lifted an obsessive dread over the impending end of a Navy career she loves. “I remain optimistic that the Constitution I swore an oath to will continue to protect the rights of all Americans,” she said on Monday.

The decision is the latest in a series of controversial White House policies halted by the courts, including limiting travel from predominantly Muslim countries and withholding federal grant money from so-called sanctuary cities. Asked for comment, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said the Justice Department was reviewing the ruling.

“We disagree with the court’s ruling and are currently evaluating the next steps,” the department said in a statement, calling the lawsuit “premature” because the military was still reviewing the policy.

The decision is a blow for social conservatives, who have pushed to curtail transgender policies since the ban was lifted in 2016. In June, some Republicans in Congress unsuccessfully sought to force a ban on sex reassignment surgery by attaching it to the annual military spending bill. In response, Mr. Trump made a far bolder move to ban transgender service members entirely.

At the time, Representative Vicky Hartzler, a Republican from Missouri, openly praised what she said was the president’s willingness to put national security first. On Monday, her press secretary said she would not comment on the ruling.

Democrats in Congress, who in September introduced legislation to protect transgender troops from discharge, were quick to mark a victory.

“Federal courts have again beat back the sinister specter of discrimination bred within the Trump White House,” Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said in a statement. “This court order will allow our transgender troops to continue serving based on their ability to fight, train, and deploy — regardless of gender identity.”

Logan Ireland, an Air Force staff sergeant who was not involved in the lawsuits, said he and other transgender troops were hopeful but cautious. He said the president could still take steps to discharge them.

More than anything, the Afghanistan veteran, who leads security forces, said he hoped the end of the ban would allow him to concentrate more on his work.

“We want to go back to serving,” he said. “There are troops that work under me, there is work to be done. We want to do it. After all, we are here for our country, not who sits in the White House.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/u...-ban.html?_r=0

[*Anya*]

An Embattled North Carolina Seeks to Outrun a Law’s Bitter Legacy

By ALAN BLINDERNOV. 4, 2017

RALEIGH, N.C. —

North Carolina wanted its reputation back.

Worn down by about a year of battles and boycotts, its leaders cut a deal in March to repeal a law that had restricted restroom access for transgender people. But North Carolina is finding that it is easier to plunge into a culture war than it is to leave one behind.

“This isn’t like the Cold War where it came, it went, it was over and people didn’t worry about it anymore,” a longtime Republican strategist, Carter Wrenn, said.

The day-to-day debate, Democrats and Republicans often note, has receded, and the national uproar that buffeted North Carolina beginning in March 2016 has largely abated. Still, a battered and weary state is slogging through a landscape of residual damage that some observers warn will not fade quickly.

The state’s most powerful elected officials just recently sparred, in effect, over the matter of who should be allowed to use which restrooms in publicly owned buildings. The politics of House Bill 2, as the now-repealed law is still commonly known, has also touched mayoral races in Charlotte and Raleigh.

States like California and New York have kept their bans on public employees using tax dollars for nonessential trips to North Carolina. And some transgender residents remain so anxious that they time meals to avoid the need to use public restrooms.

“It’s kind of like one of those hangovers you get in college that lasts for a few days,” said Matt Hirschy, the interim executive director of Equality North Carolina, an advocacy group. “Unfortunately for us, it’s going to last for a few years, at least.”

In a state where partisan rancor is a bipartisan pastime, people still marvel at how quickly and broadly H.B. 2, which required people in publicly owned buildings to use the restroom that corresponded with the gender listed on their birth certificate, reshaped perceptions of North Carolina.

The law was championed by Republicans, who argued that it was crucial to public safety and a rebuff to an overreaching city government in Charlotte, and attracted some Democratic support.

Critics organized a staggering backlash to a measure they called intolerant, anachronistic and contrary to generations of political moderation in North Carolina. Some of the nation’s most influential corporations openly attacked the law; the N.C.A.A. said it would stop hosting championship events in this sports-crazed state; and the Justice Department, under President Barack Obama, brought what could have become a momentous civil rights lawsuit.

About a year after the law took effect, with the potential economic costs projected to run into the billions of dollars, officials struck a deal that transgender rights groups attacked as a “fake repeal” that did not strip away the intent of the measure.

The national outrage ebbed anyway, business groups and convention planners appeared mostly satisfied, and the N.C.A.A. relented.

But, in a signal of how North Carolina has so far been unable to outrun the law’s legacy, political tensions flared again last month when Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, proposed a settlement in related litigation. As part of the deal, Mr. Cooper agreed to declare that “transgender people are not prevented from the use of public facilities in accordance with their gender identity.”

The General Assembly’s leading Republicans, who either declined to comment or did not respond to interview requests, swiftly condemned the proposal as “a stunt” that proved that Mr. Cooper “acted in bad faith and lied about wanting to end the focus on H.B. 2.” (A federal judge in Winston-Salem is considering the proposed settlement.)

Indeed, Republicans contend that any lingering discussion about the law and its repercussions is driven only by transgender rights activists, their elected allies and the news media.

“There is no escape because there are certain interest groups that want to keep bringing it up, and the media loves it, too,” said Pat McCrory, the Republican former governor whose support for H.B. 2 contributed to his defeat last November, when Donald J. Trump easily carried North Carolina.

“Most of us, including me, would just as soon move on,” Mr. McCrory added. Mr. Cooper, who said in March that the repeal legislation “cannot be the only step,” defended his decisions and said, “They set the fire, and I’m working to put it out.” “I think most North Carolinians believe we are moving in the right direction, but many of them know we still have more work to do,” said Mr. Cooper, whose actions last month were timed for the day before the deadline for proposals for Amazon’s second headquarters. “But I believe that North Carolina is a welcoming place and a great state to do business. We have taken enough important steps to signal to the world that we’re open for business, and it’s pretty clear that businesses are responding in a positive way.”

Strategists on both sides of the debate agree that voters have tired of talk about H.B. 2, but there is no consensus on how much the law will influence next year’s elections.

“I find it highly unlikely that you will find the national money trying to make North Carolina a cultural battleground state at the legislative level,” said Art Pope, a conservative financier who served in Mr. McCrory’s administration.

A poll conducted by Elon University in April found that about two-thirds of North Carolina’s registered voters thought the state’s reputation had worsened in the year since the law’s approval. Issues like the economy and education now appear most crucial to winning over state voters, but surveys suggest that residents remain irritated over H.B. 2 and the issues that surround it.

“I think the volume has been turned down,” Mr. Hirschy of Equality North Carolina said. “The fervor is still there in our community, and if you ask our opponents, their fervor is still there.”

Perhaps so, to the possible political benefit of both sides. An influential group of religious conservatives recently produced an advertisement complaining that a candidate for mayor of Charlotte “endorsed a radical, national L.G.B.T. agenda allowing men in women’s locker rooms and bathrooms.” The election is Tuesday.

But for many of the state’s transgender residents, estimated at nearly 45,000 by a research institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, H.B. 2’s repercussions do not play out on television screens.

They are reflected, transgender people said, in quick decisions about whether to have a second cup of coffee and in choices about how much to share about themselves in conversation.

“Before, whether or not you identified yourself as being transgender to someone was based on whether or not you perceived them as an ally or someone who would be O.K. with it,” said Candis Cox, an activist who is a transgender woman. “Now, what we have is a climate in which you really have a lot of trepidation about trusting people because we have now seen that people can seem to have all of the support in the world for you but have ulterior motives.”

And there is a measured sense that the fury of the H.B. 2 debate could someday be rekindled. On this matter, at least, there is some agreement. “What we’re seeing is a kind of holding of the breath,” Ms. Cox said. “That’s where we’re at right now because we were dealt this awful blow, and it’s waiting for the other shoe to drop. We don’t know where we are. The people who supported H.B. 2 — the citizens, the politicians — we know that they’re still there.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/u...-law.html?_r=0

[DapperButch]

Transgender Candidate Danica Roem Wins Historic Election to the Virginia State Legislature
The 33-year-old Democrat will be the first transgender person elected and seated to a state legislature.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics...inia-election/

[DapperButch]

Just a reminder that today is Transgender Day of Remembrance.

[DapperButch]

Most people have probably heard by now, but we are now allowed to enlist.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politi...ist/index.html

Although trans service members weren't being kicked out, they weren't allowed to reenlist either. I believe that they were supposed to be removed if they were to move to a higher rank, however (?).

This link includes Dr. Christine McGinn who had agreed to perform surgeries for free for those service members who were already on her schedule for surgery (she is a Veteran). She said that in November she received a check from the government for the surgery that was already scheduled, for a pt. who had already been transitioning through her (could have been electrolysis, HRT, already had vaginoplasty but was getting a revision, ?).

Sooo for those of you who have had your heart on the military, go for it before they have a "change of heart".