Ohio has banned gender-affirming care for minors and restricted transgender women’s and girls’ participation on sports teams, a move that has families of transgender children scrambling over how best to care for them.

The Republican-dominated Senate voted Wednesday to override GOP Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto. The new law bans gender-affirming surgeries and hormone therapies, and restricts mental health care for transgender individuals under 18. The measure also bans transgender girls and women from girls and women’s sports teams at both the K-12 and collegiate level.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    We could have protected trans people’s rights at the national level, but it would have required getting rid of the filibuster.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      “But the GOP might use it against us!” say Dems while the GOP actively uses it against the Dems making any kind of positive change.

      If they would ditch it then they can accomplish something so that people will vote for them and then they only need the Presidency, Senate, or House to be able to accomplish the same thing as the filibuster. Keeping the filibuster when the GOPs entire platform is obstruction is just giving them more options to obstruct.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        “But the GOP might use it against us!” say Dems while the GOP actively uses it against the Dems making any kind of positive change.

        Historically, just for example, Biden has voted against LGBTQ rights. he flipped in 2019- supposedly- because of his presidential campaign. In the Senate, he consistently voted against gay marriage. Why any one things the nominal leader of the DNC would suddenly start caring about trans rights when he never cared about gay rights… is quite beyond me.

        Same goes for Abortion.

        Same goes for Climate change.

        same goes for basically anything that is a progressive concern of the 40 year old “young voters”

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            9 months ago

            He might give lip service; and I may be a bit off on the timing, but as late as the mid-90’s, he was voting against gay marriage.

            The point I’m trying to make though, is that there were tools to win and they’re not talking them. Filibuster. Packing the supreme court. and it’s not just LGBTQ issues that are on the chopping block here… it’s, basically, everything. We’re facing a constitutional crisis because Biden refused to act… because he’s not got with the times and is still playing ‘good ol boy’ horsetrading politics against a team that’s determined to lie, cheat, and steal for every last scrap of power.

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                yeah, I recognize that. Abortion was in 2019, though. But I doubt very much he has had a change of heart, so much as, simply being, you know, a politician whose got somebody explaining where things are. Did you believe him when he said he had ‘the epiphany’ as a senior in highschool?

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          This is pretty true. It’s not because Biden is a bad person or out of touch, he comes from a very long ago generation that carries far different values than people who are younger.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            he comes from a very long ago generation that carries far different values than people who are younger.

            is that kind of the definition of out of touch, though? The world has changed around him. Just some quick for examples. the World Wide Web wasn’t first proposed as such until 1990, by Burners-Lee. Over half his life predates the modern internet as we know it. Friendster was in 2001, myspace in '03, facebook in '04. Social media as we understand the term has only existed for the last quarter of his life.

            and lets not forget, that he’s been a politician for longer than millennials have been alive. He’s a very large part of how we came to be here. I will say this, he’s far less out of touch than Trump, or somebody like Bitch McConnel; they’re still stuck in that period of time were Fascism was “cool”… (well, for assholes.)

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              is that kind of the definition of out of touch, though?

              Sure, if he still held the beliefs, but as you’ve pointed out he has come around on a lot of these things, making him not out of touch (in context).

              I don’t know how old you are, but back in the 90s only a small percentage supported things like gay marriage. I remember in college becoming convinced that it should be an equal right for all, and white often getting pushback from liberals.

              He was basically “in touch” with the dominant opinion back then, and is now.

        • dan1101@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          The Clintons were against gay marriage too IIRC. Those generations took longer to change their position on the issue. And of course many Republicans never did change their position.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            it does have to do why they’re reluctant to break it, though, for any progressive cause.

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                they support the military industrial complex. Which is why Biden was so willing to expedite a certain genocidal maniac buying more bombs.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  they support the military industrial complex.

                  They sure do. They don’t run on that because it’s unpopular. Democrats run on shit they never have any intention of implementing and then get in their own way to prevent it from happening.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Probably would not have even required getting rid of it. Go back to the days when people had to actively filibuster and I’m sure it would have been passed.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Dems are so infuriatingly bad at politics, it’s almost incomprehensible if not intentional.

      Watch, they will get rid of the filibuster, but they’ll wait to do it until the end of this year, handing the repugs everything in the process.