Here is a very simplistic argument: We are all human beings and as human beings should all have the same rights. What a revolutionary concept! The rest is trying to control and make rules for something that might offend someone's sensibilities or their religious beliefs. This is a ridiculous argument that wastes the time of everyone envolved. There is no harm here. I went to a restaurant the other day and the bathrooms were labeled "Whatever"!!
If you subscribe to the idea of the mind "matching" the body, then you subscribe to regressive, sexist ideas of what a woman or man should be.
Wear what you want, love whomever you love, have whatever personality suits you, but don't say that these things make you a man or a woman. And certainly don't make LAWS that say that personality traits, modes of dress, or internal feelings, make one a man or a woman. That only places restrictions on us, saying that there are certain gendered ways men or women "should" act or feel.
We are male and female, and that can be anything. But it does not change the fact that we are sexually dimorphic species. It doesn't mean that children should be advised that they are "born in the wrong body" when they find sexual stereotypes don't suit them. Our bodies are fine. It's the stereotypes about them that should go.
From its inception, I have listened to The Daily because it addresses topics I am intensely interested in and want to understand more deeply. But sometimes The Daily topic is not of particular interest or I may assume I already know all there is to know about it. Often, to my surprise, these sessions turn out to be even more enjoyable and informative than those I am eager to plunge into. Case in point: today's Supreme Court sexual identity case, in print, would not have attracted my eye, while The Daily's audio interviews with the plaintiff and the NYT court reporter were, now not so surprisingly, revelatory and very moving.
5
From its inception, I have listened to The Daily because it addresses topics I am intensely interested in and want to understand more deeply. But sometimes The Daily topic is not of particular interest or I may assume I already know all there is to know about it. Often, to my surprise, these sessions turn out to be even more enjoyable and informative than those I am eager to plunge into. Case in point: today's Supreme Court sexual identity case, in print, would not have attracted my eye, while The Daily's audio interviews with the plaintiff and the NYT court reporter were, now not so surprisingly, revelatory and very moving.
Thank you for interviewing Ms. Stephens. Her tenacity and courage to hold onto life is inspiring. This is an important issue for our country and my family. As a follow up, I am interested in knowing more about the Religious Restoration Act. Maybe an upcoming Daily?
2
Our country could solve the problem easily by adopting Europe’s practice of unisex bathrooms. Or, how about this? Last year I visited the University of Washington with my granddaughter who is thinking of applying there. We were touring the campus and my granddaughter, my son-in-law and I needed to use the restroom. We saw a building that looked promising so we entered. It happened to be the University of Washington’s College of law. We found a bathroom and low and behold, it was a non-gender specific bathroom. We were all able to use the same bathroom, what a concept. A very civil way of solving this issue.
4
I wish the host Michael Barbarro would stop the frequent pauses in his speech. It seems to be meant for effect but IMO it is very distracting and increasingly annoying. I like him as a host otherwise. I love NYT but the Daily podcast is becoming unlistenable for me due to this. Maybe just a quirk with me. Also - Aimee Stevens is a hero - regardless of how the Court rules.
@Marguerite How about we just let Michael be Michael. He's such a talented journalist and brings us tons of great stories. Let's support him and encourage him, or else he might not know how much we truly value his work. And that would that be a shame. People's speech is like dancing...we might not know how to dance with them, but we can stand back and watch and appreciate their different style.
2
Best.
Daily.
Ever.
1
I hope the SC rules in favor of transgender and gay rights, but I am pessimistic. Trump didn't appoint Gorsuch and Kavanagh to side with the liberal justices. The conservative Christian evangelicals who selected those justices (judges at the time) to be on the court would certainly raise hell if they did.
What's clear is if the Court rules against the plaintiffs it will be due to their own conservative beliefs. Although they will dress up their decision in sensible sounding legal arguments.
What makes no sense is the so-called originalalist or textual interpretation of the Constitution. We live in a completely different world than when the Constitution was written 230 years ago. Not much is the same. If you limit your understanding of the Constitution to the world of 1787, the document becomes useless.
Both sides stretch the Constitution to fit their preconceived beliefs. The difference is the conservative justices are hypocrital about it.
1
thank you so much, NYT The Daily, for this beautiful and heartbreaking story that left me breathless. Aimee Stephens is a brave and lovely soul who deserves to win this case. I hope that one day future generations will look back at this kind of painful discrimination and shake their heads in disbelief. If better days are ahead, it will take the courage of an Aimee Stephens to make it happen.
2
Dear Aimee Stephens, your letter was courageous and beautiful and I could see who you are in your words. I know that I am one voice, in a crowd of innumerable voices, who shouts out in encouragement and wishes you strength, light and much love. We have but one life and we are all entitled to live in joy, to love as we love and be present as ourselves. I wish you well as you continue on your journey. God bless you.
3
It's infuriating to hear the reporters here - whom I respect immensely - suggest that Gorsuch is engaging in an intellectually honest debate with himself when he asks whether he should veer from the Textualist analysis he loves, and consider the supposed carnage that might ensue from a decision in favor of trans people. It's not honest at all. What's happening is that his Textualist principles might lead him to a "liberal" result "("It's close, it's really close...") so he's looking for an offramp to get him to the result he wants, which is to rule against the trans plaintiff. This is the false facade of the Textualist position. Conservatives embrace Textualism because it very often leads to a conservative result. When it doesn't, they junk it and decide a conservative result on some other basis. (NB Justice Scalia for 30 years). Please NYT reporters, see that for what it is, and call it out.
1
Mr Barbaro...at the end of Thursday's "Daily," you said Bevin was asking for a recount in Kentucky.
No. He is asking for a recanvass. Different animal.
A recount may not even be in play. The election could get tossed to the Legislature under the now newly infamous Section 90 of the constitution: "Contested elections for Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be determined by both Houses of the General Assembly, according to such regulations as may be established by law."
Do people have some particular 'mind' to match our sexed bodies? Seems terribly sexist and regressive to me.
2
Aimee and her wife are an amazing example of how soul and identity matters and not your (initial) physical appearances. The episode was powerful, emotional and educational.
Dear Aimee - your words at the end of the interview are powerful to all that are strugling with any sort of identity crisis. I belief all around you must be so proud you choose life and you choose to be you in the truest form you can be. Let that be an inspiration to anyone. Wish you and your wife happiness and health.
1