Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Instructions: Answer Questions #1, #2, #3, and #4. All of these questions can be answered in a fully satisfactory manner by using only the material presented in the course (readings, lectures and Powe
Instructions: Answer Questions #1, #2, #3, and #4. All of these questions can be answered in a fully satisfactory manner by using only the material presented in the course (readings, lectures and Powerpoint presentations). Each answer is worth 5% of the course grade (15% total). Indicate clearly which questions you are answering and please submit your answers single-spaced in Word document no later than 11:59pm on Wednesday, April 29, 2020. You do not need to cite any of the lectures, Powerpoints or readings.
- Page limit: Answer each question in 1-2 pages single spaced.
- All Answers are attached. Just organize the answers and make sure that you address every single part of the question. full answers are needed.
1. Suppose that you attend a roundtable discussion of Heath Fogg Davis’ book, Beyond Trans. In addition to Fogg Davis himself, the other two roundtable participants describe themselves as “a conservative” and “a liberal”. Analyze two of the three principal cases that Fogg Davis presents in his book Beyond Trans--- the use of sex markers in government issued identification documents (such as transit passes), admissions policies at women’s only colleges, and the use of public restrooms. Analyze these cases in terms of the issue or problem that they present and the solutions that have been offered. Be sure to talk about why Fogg Davis thinks that his solutions to these issues are superior. Specifically, address these questions:
a. First, what was the specific issue about in each case? What was the source of the problem? What broader or more fundamental problem or issue did these specific issues illustrate?
b. Second, contrast the approaches to resolving these issues that the conservative and liberal participants would offer as well as Fogg Davis’ own approach. How would each of these three approaches address these issues? What general principle(s) would guide them and what specific policy options would they recommend for dealing with the issues?
2. Are LGBTQ American voters similar to or different from non-LGBTQ American voters or voters in general? In what ways are the two groups similar or different? How do we know that identifying as LGBTQ by itself appears to have some impact on policy preferences and vote choice? Finally, how can we explain the distinctive nature of LGBTQ voters as a voting bloc?
3. Suppose that you are a member of the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) staff and your assignment is to recruit and advise openly LBTQ candidates for office. Since running for office requires a considerable sacrifice of their personal time, effort and maybe even money, as well as publicly acknowledging their sexuality, your first task is to convince these prospective LGBTQ candidates why it is important that openly LGBTQ individuals run for office and serve as elected officials. Next, you need to decide in which kinds of races and which kinds of candidates the HRC should spend its limited resources (money, time, campaign expertise, etc.) recruiting candidates. Based upon what we know about the experience of other openly LGBTQ candidates and American electoral politics, what should you tell candidates about where and how to run to maximize their chances for success? The candidates are particularly concerned about the possibility of anti-LGBTQ bias possibly reducing their chances of victory. What can you tell them about that issue in particular?
4. In looking at the struggle for LGBTQ rights across the globe, it is clear that what separates countries where LGBTQ people enjoy freedom, rights and equality is whether nations are highly developed economically and whether they have democratic political systems. Economic development and democracy are all that seem to matter when it comes to whether LGBTQ people enjoy freedom, equal treatment and acceptance. Evaluate this argument for understanding differences among and between nations in their treatment of the LGBTQ population.
