I used to be an ACLU supporter, but stopped after their main objectives switched to more of what I describe as matters of feelings, E.g., whether a man who identifies as a women can use a women's bathroom in Georgia, or whether the term man or women can ever be used at all. In my opinion most the ACLU LGBT agenda has been a useless war on words, yet it's taking on a greater and greater importance in the organization.
Meanwhile constitutionally-guaranteed personal liberties, such as protection against unreasonable search and seizure, seemed to be getting less and less important.
Instead I've switched to funding the EFF, which really does seem at the forefront of constitutional freedoms because it's operating in an area where they are seriously under attack. In the grand scheme of things the EFF seems to be doing much more important and historically relevant work.
"A man who identifies as a woman" is a disingenuous statement--it is leading with some sort of made up notion of what their gender should be ("a man who..."), which is a false framing in the first place. Transgender women are women. They are not men with a qualifier.
Moving on: transgender bathroom rights matter. Access to public bathrooms is necessary for access to public spaces and is furthermore generally an indicator of free unencumbered movement in public. Therefore, state-sponsored humiliation tactics are indicating a stance that trans people are not welcome in a public space. This is problematic, and furthermore is certainly a matter of civil liberty. The ACLU should take those cases and it's important to stand up against steps to marginalize and "other" groups of people. As public space is necessary to exercise certain rights in the constitution, particularly the first amendment, this matters at a very deep level.
To give a clear and specific example: a friend of mine is no longer safe visiting his family in North Carolina, as he is trans. He must either choose to violate the law in public to fit in (he passes as a man), or by following the law out himself or put himself at risk. He no longer has the liberty to visit his family like you or I do, without additional--potentially severe--legal or physical risk.
Why was my comment transphobic? It seems the common riposte in today's political climate is to use some kind of derogative label if the other person doesn't fit your exact worldview.
Your comment is transphobic in the following ways:
1) your direct language ("a man who identifies as") is problematic in the way it frames the argument. It is both dismissive in that it implies the rights being stepped on are trivial and not worth concern, and in that it up-front implies (again, you lead specifically with "men who...") that the people involved are claiming these rights in bad faith.
2) Your dismissal of the defense of rights for a marginalized group is problematic. I explained why. I don't think I should need to continue to rephrase that argument.
Calling your comment transphobic should probably lead to you in good faith wondering why people think you are using transphobic language; if you want to not be perceived as transphobic (and if you think you are okay with trans people) then figure out why your behaviors do not line up with that belief about yourself and fix it.
If it is merely a question of priority ("there's more important things than the rights of the marginalized to focus on right now!") then: if not now, then when? You might have a good answer in this instant, but... the goalposts always move. Since marginalized groups are by their very definition small and at the edges of society, there will always be something to prioritize over their rights; that is how marginalization perpetuates. If we do not defend the marginalized and most vulnerable intersections of our society, then our society has failed.
Would it be your "feelings" telling you that the ACLU, by standing up for transgender rights, has pushed aside the fight for the personal liberties that "normal" people get to exercise? Because most of the cases my local ACLU is taking on are the classic standing up to police and ensuring that poor kids get an equal education.
That's hardly their main focus. Go to https://www.aclu.org/ and click Issues. LGBT Rights are just one of 18 top level issues (many broken down into many more related issues).
I love the EFF, but they don't cover voting rights, disability rights, immigration rights, racial justice, etc.
> Affirmative action is one of the most effective tools for redressing the injustices caused by our nation’s historic discrimination against people of color and women, and for leveling what has long been an uneven playing field.
This is bad for two reasons
1. is is immoral in principle
2. it is bad politics; attitudes like this make it more likely that Trump will win a 2nd term
They have a lot of pokers in the civil liberty fire, and I really do wish them success in all of them. However as you (and probably many others here) are now supporters you'll start receiving the newsletter which outlines your local chapters focus, recent successes, and new battles. You can make a decision to continue supporting the organization or switch to something you believe personally is more important.
Meanwhile constitutionally-guaranteed personal liberties, such as protection against unreasonable search and seizure, seemed to be getting less and less important.
Instead I've switched to funding the EFF, which really does seem at the forefront of constitutional freedoms because it's operating in an area where they are seriously under attack. In the grand scheme of things the EFF seems to be doing much more important and historically relevant work.