The Trump
Administration sent forth a roll back or revoke for a better word on the Obama
Administrations policies on transgender protection. The
Justice and Educations departments issued the new guidance after a reported
dispute within the administration between Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who backed
the withdrawal, and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who initially opposed
doing so. This is said to be the latest instance of Trump, since the
presidential campaign, where he shows mixed signals on gays and transgender
rights. Attorney General Jeff Sessions states that, “Congress, state
legislatures and local governments are in a position to adopt appropriate
policies or laws addressing this issue.” Many parents were with and happy for
Trump’s decision on revoking the transgender protections. They did not like how
a girl or boy that identified themselves as the other sex for their gender,
were able to use the same bathrooms as their children. However; for one
teenager in Virginia named Gavin Grimm, this was a nightmare that he could not
wake up from. Starting high school and sophomore year as a female student, then
coming back junior and senior year as a male student was a real struggle and challenge
for the teen. Grimm going to the nurse’s office to use the bathroom because
he/she did not know where to go, the boy’s restroom or the girls. So, when Grimm
asked the schools main office if he/she could use the boys room they said yes,
which made parents lash out at the next school board meeting. Many believe that
it’s outrageous to let someone use a bathroom based on gender rather than the
sex they were assigned at birth. While others think that it’s time to realize
that transgender people have needs too. But Trump’s taking back Obama’s
transgender protection does not meet this needs of transgender people but
rather take away from them. “Transgender students pose no threat to the safety or privacy of
non-transgender students. We all just want to be able to do well and succeed in
school while still being able to be ourselves,” statement by Grimm. In one article,
it says revoking the transgender protections goes against Title IV saying that
it takes away the rights of one due to the sex. However, in a different article
it states that Title IV is clear with the ruling of that which it protects
against sexism and not against whatever gender one may identify themselves as. Which
is the big problem with this case, because everyone’s view is different in
regards of how one should be classified either on their gender or the sex they
were given at birth. Others argued that this guidance of the Obama protection was
a violation of the State’s rights and the filled lawsuits against it. Social conservative’s
cheers and applauded the revoke, while a certain mother named Vicki Wilson says
that she sympathizes
with children who have “difficult personal issues,” but thinks that “young men
shouldn’t be permitted to deal with those issues in an intimate setting like a
locker room with young women.”
Yes, this is another of the many issues where the current president has moved in a decidedly different direction from the former administration. This particular issue is a very good example for our class assignment because the very nature of the issue is often characterized in fundamentally different ways by different media outlets. The executive order from President Obama was called "guidance" only because an executive order cannot establish an actual law. This "guidance," however, included the coercive threat to every school's federal subsidy - which is money that schools need in order to purchase educational resources. But, linking local bathroom policy to federal "guidance" through the coercive threat of budgetary punishment is one way to look at this issue. Clearly, another way to see this is as the federal government abdicating on their responsibility to protect vulnerable students.
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate your discussion of Vicki Wilson and Gavin Grimm, I would ask that you properly cite the sources you use in your post. Also, because our class is focused upon how competing narratives can emerge from a political disagreement, it becomes key to consider the outlet where you read about young Mr. Grimm, or Mrs. Wilson. Would FOX portray Grimm as a victim? Would MSNBC? Which outlet might be more sympathetic to any concerns raised by Mrs. Wilson?
Also, while Title IX is a central focus for this debate - there are actually MANY controversies which have emerged as Title IX has been expanded by politicians or academics beyond its original charge (which was about equality in opportunities in extra-curricular activities and sports for male and female students). There has been extensive debate regarding this expansion of Title IX.
I might encourage you to dig deeper into the ways Title IX has evolved from a law to assure equal opportunity into leverage for the affirmation of a particular ideology. Good start here! Please let me know how I can help!
Thank you for your feedback on my blog discussion. After reading what you thought I should look into more about whether or not FOX and MSNBC would portray Grimm as the victim it was interesting in what I found. FOX news states that the courts reinstated Grimm's Title IX claims and sent it to district courts for further consideration. However, MSNBC talks about how the Supreme Court rejects to hear Grimm's case and that they also actually wiped off the books a previous case involving Grimm that ruled in his favor. Nothing in that nature or close to it was found in the article I read about on FOX news. So it is very obvious which one of the two portrays Gavin Grimm as the victim and which one does not.
ReplyDeleteAs for the controversies with the whole Title IX due to its' expansions by politicians and academics it went from just making sure female athletes had the same opportunities that male athletes had. Now people are using it to fight cases of sexual assault, transgender issues, and even in career fields. And now that Trump is in office many are scared that everything Obama has done with the expansion of Title IX is going to be taken away. I personally do not think that will happen because it is 2017 and people have become accustomed to the fact that women are just as equal to men in school, sports, and job careers.
Brief here. It seems, from this post, that you have decided to focus more attention on how Title IX has become a law which provides a great deal of leverage for the progressive agenda. I would ask, however, that you do more than speculate over how people are concerned over Mr. Trump's intentions regarding Title IX. Presidents, by the way, do not have the power to simply change, or "take away," a law. While it's true that many people have expressed many different concerns about Mr. Trump's agenda, you need to cite sources to make those assertions.
ReplyDeleteAlso, please be mindful of the political nature of your personal assessment. You strongly imply that Title IX is a law which affirms that women and men are "equal" in "school, sports, and job careers." Is that what the law says? Is it concerning when a law which is specific in what it covers is used to cover things which are not mentioned? Consider looking deeper into the evolution of Title IX as a weaponized law. You casually mention that MSNBC described how the SCOTUS "actually wiped off the books a previous cased involving Grimm that ruled in his favor." This represents a highly dubious claim that would require some verification.
You have some interesting ideas here. Remember that the goal of this paper is not for you to participate in the debate, or even to assess the relative merits of each position. Rather, the goal here is to see how broader narratives are constructed to directly influence public opinion. Take a close look at that odd claim that the SCOTUS had wiped anything "off the books" in recent years.
Intriguing here - but still somewhat unfocused. Please let me know how I can help!