I likely disagree with a lot of your political opinions, but I want nothing bad to happen to you. If you were my coworker or we encountered each other in public, I would treat you with respect unless you disrespected me.
I see lots of changes to the extent that we will no longer “celebrate” or subsidize LGTBQ+ or DEI issues with public funds. That seems fair to me, I don’t expect public funds to be used to celebrate my lifestyle and sexual preferences. I think that flying an LGTBQ flag over an US Embassy in another country where the citizens overwhelmingly oppose such ideas, does not further any American interest. It just makes working with such countries more difficult.
I also don’t believe in equity in the sense of discriminating against people now for wrongs of the past. I believe strongly in equality and in merit based opportunity that is not in any way tied to immutable characteristics.
I do not see any action that the government has taken as endangering anyone. I would vocally oppose any policy that I thought would harm someone (except I don’t think ending a benefit is a harm in this context).
> I do not see any action that the government has taken as endangering anyone
I’m curious how you view the executive order that moves transgender women into men’s prisons. To me those prisoners are now in a danger they were not previously.
But female prisoners are now at less risk, because they're no longer being forcibly incarcerated with male prisoners, thanks to this executive order. In federal prisons at least.
The process of hosting a transgender woman with a violent prisoner is called v-coding, and it's done in order both to punish the transgender woman and reward the violent prisoner. This has been an unofficial policy on many levels of corrections for decades, and is not new. Firing a few wardens won't fix it, and often complaints are ignored and/or swept under the rug.
If this is something you didn't know, Google it. Don't take my word for it.
I don't doubt this is true. We see many law enforcement abuses of this sort[1] and I want any such abuses investigated and the perpetrators severely punished.
But you are implying that because that might happen, the transgender woman should be left in the women's prison. But that carries its own risks[2] which ALWAYS get left out of these discussions. I do not automatically believe in the sincerity of men, especially those with a history of violence against women, when they arrive at prison and only afterwards declare that they are trans.
The solution to the problem is separate. The executive order could have included language about protecting prisoners from violence but it does not. Can you agree that the executive order increases the danger that person is in?
The executive order could have included all sorts of "remember to do your job" directives to prisons.
I don't agree with the framing of the question. Men's prisons are typically more violent than women's prisons. So from that perspective, statistically the person is in more danger. However if we only look at that, we would transfer everyone to women's prisons.
You are implying but not stating that there is some extraordinary targeting of trans women by prisoners in men's prisons. I don't know if that is true or not but it seems plausible. My argument is that since prisoners are intentionally kept in a defenseless state, that it is the job and moral duty of prison staff to keep prisoners safe from each other, regardless of who the prisoner is. If a specific prisoner is at unusual risk of violence (like a convicted police officer, for example), then I expect that prisons have processes in place for that.
You’re still talking around the issue. You said that you’d object to anything that puts people in danger. You admit this order puts people in danger but immediately pivot to talk about where the responsibility ought to lie for mitigating that danger rather than follow through with your original pledge to OP.
It just makes your original statement look dishonest. You do not object to the order that places people in danger. You and I both know that prisons are terrible for protecting vulnerable populations. “They should, though” is both correct and meaningless to the person being transferred.
I am not talking around the issue; I am just not accepting your framing that moving these people into men's prisons puts them in any danger over and above the danger of being in a prison.
I agree that there are dangers in prisons. But I don't think that prevents us from routine transfers of people between prisons.
I do think that prison officials are responsible for the safety of their prisoners and want them held accountable when they fail to do that, or worse, when they intentionally endanger prisoners.
I can't be more clear than that. I reject your framing.
> I don’t expect public funds to be used to celebrate my lifestyle and sexual preferences
End the child tax credit and extra tax exemptions for being (straight) married then or shut the fuck up because the amount of money going to subsidizing that is much, much, MUCH more than what is spent on LGBTQ+/"woke"/DEI stuff. If you care about the deficit, go for those first.
I see lots of changes to the extent that we will no longer “celebrate” or subsidize LGTBQ+ or DEI issues with public funds. That seems fair to me, I don’t expect public funds to be used to celebrate my lifestyle and sexual preferences. I think that flying an LGTBQ flag over an US Embassy in another country where the citizens overwhelmingly oppose such ideas, does not further any American interest. It just makes working with such countries more difficult.
I also don’t believe in equity in the sense of discriminating against people now for wrongs of the past. I believe strongly in equality and in merit based opportunity that is not in any way tied to immutable characteristics.
I do not see any action that the government has taken as endangering anyone. I would vocally oppose any policy that I thought would harm someone (except I don’t think ending a benefit is a harm in this context).