This week in Woke: Actresses justly cancelled for committing atrocities

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm a bit put off by the second item in the guidance:

2. Refusing To Allow People To Utilize Single-Gender Facilities and Programs Most Closely Aligned with Their Gender

The NYCHRL requires that people be permitted to use single-gender facilities, such as restrooms or locker rooms, and to participate in single-gender programs, that most closely align with their gender, regardless of their gender expression, sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, or the sex or gender indicated on their identification. Covered entities that have single-occupancy restrooms should make clear that they can be used by people of all genders. 18

Some people, including customers, other program participants, tenants, or employees, may object to sharing a facility or participating in a program with a transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming person. Such objections are not a lawful reason to deny access to that transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming person. In those circumstances, a covered entity may offer alternatives for the individual expressing discomfort, by, for example, providing a single-occupancy restroom to change in.

That seems to suggest that if a female bodied person, in a female locker room, is uncomfortable having a male-bodied person who self-identifies as a woman in there with her... then the female-bodied person is the one who is expected to leave the female locker room?

It would not be lawful according to those guidelines to prevent the person with male sexual organs (and no female sexual organs) to be there. The person with female and no male sexual organs may stay despite her discomfort, or leave.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

This law doesn't compel speech, it forbids discrimination in employment, public accommodation, and public housing.

Okay... but their own legal enforcement guidelines specify that failure to use a person's preferred pronouns is a violation of the law. So i'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction here.

The law doesn't require you to address people by or refer to people with gendered language, so there are very few contexts where a person is required to refer to someone with specific gendered language. Those limited situations where a person may be required to apply gendered terms to an individual--let's say, as a job requirement for example--also tend to include areas where other protected characteristics may be referenced in a similar fashion.

The issue faced by the 'compelled speech' camp is how to disentangle the principles of anti-discrimination applied to gender identity and expression from other protected characteristics to which those same principles are applied.

 

[Metaphor]

The law doesn't require you to address people by or refer to people with gendered language,

Yes, it does.

1. Failing To Use the Name or Pronouns with Which a Person Self-Identifies The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use the name, pronouns, and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs./Mx.)¹⁵ with which a person self-identifies, regardless of the person’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the person’s identification.

The guidelines even state that if a person's legal name is 'Mirabel' but that person wishes to be called 'Manuel', you must call them Manuel.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I'm a bit put off by the second item in the guidance:

2. Refusing To Allow People To Utilize Single-Gender Facilities and Programs Most Closely Aligned with Their Gender

The NYCHRL requires that people be permitted to use single-gender facilities, such as restrooms or locker rooms, and to participate in single-gender programs, that most closely align with their gender, regardless of their gender expression, sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, or the sex or gender indicated on their identification. Covered entities that have single-occupancy restrooms should make clear that they can be used by people of all genders. 18

Some people, including customers, other program participants, tenants, or employees, may object to sharing a facility or participating in a program with a transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming person. Such objections are not a lawful reason to deny access to that transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming person. In those circumstances, a covered entity may offer alternatives for the individual expressing discomfort, by, for example, providing a single-occupancy restroom to change in.

That seems to suggest that if a female bodied person, in a female locker room, is uncomfortable having a male-bodied person who self-identifies as a woman in there with her... then the female-bodied person is the one who is expected to leave the female locker room?

Generally, when restrooms are made available to the public (including customers of businesses open to the general public) or to employees or other similar situations, individuals using the restrooms aren't granted veto power over other occupants. The law recognizes gender identity as a valid criterion for using specific gender/ sex-segregated spaces. It can't really make that conditional on the opinions or approval of other occupants. Discomfort with others in a restroom is a difficult standard to apply. What if that discomfort is based on race or religion or age or sexual orientation or just general appearance? Who gets to veto whom and how do with manage this process? How accountable is the law to discomfort with others?

It's not that the person experiencing discomfort is expected to leave. They still retain the right to use the women's room. But where their discomfort is the area of conflict and concern, the proposed solution is to offer them additional accommodation where possible rather than place restrictions on others who ordinarily have a recognized right to use the space. I will say if transgender people--men, women and non-binary alike--required the approval of others using the restroom, it would be grossly impractical for us to ever take a piss anywhere which didn't have single-occupancy or gender-neutral facilities.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The law doesn't require you to address people by or refer to people with gendered language,

Yes, it does.

...so there are very few contexts where a person is required to refer to someone with specific gendered language. Those limited situations where a person may be required to apply gendered terms to an individual--let's say, as a job requirement for example--also tend to include areas where other protected characteristics may be referenced in a similar fashion.

I feel like I was adequately clear, but let's amend.

The law doesn't generally require you to address people by or refer to people with gendered language, save for those contexts where the use of specific terminology may also apply to other protected characteristics.

 

[Metaphor]

...so there are very few contexts where a person is required to refer to someone with specific gendered language. Those limited situations where a person may be required to apply gendered terms to an individual--let's say, as a job requirement for example--also tend to include areas where other protected characteristics may be referenced in a similar fashion.

I feel like I was adequately clear, but let's amend.

The law doesn't generally require you to address people by or refer to people with gendered language, save for those contexts where the use of specific terminology may also apply to other protected characteristics.

Yes, it does require you to address people with gendered language. You snipped out the part of the guidance that says exactly that.

The law requires you to use the names and pronouns of someone's choosing. It does not say you can 'opt out' by using other tactics such as referring to everyone as 'they' or by their last name only. It says you must use the name and pronouns someone instructs you to use.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

...so there are very few contexts where a person is required to refer to someone with specific gendered language. Those limited situations where a person may be required to apply gendered terms to an individual--let's say, as a job requirement for example--also tend to include areas where other protected characteristics may be referenced in a similar fashion.

I feel like I was adequately clear, but let's amend.

The law doesn't generally require you to address people by or refer to people with gendered language, save for those contexts where the use of specific terminology may also apply to other protected characteristics.

Yes, it does require you to address people with gendered language. You snipped out the part of the guidance that says exactly that.

The law requires you to use the names and pronouns of someone's choosing. It does not say you can 'opt out' by using other tactics such as referring to everyone as 'they' or by their last name only. It says you must use the name and pronouns someone instructs you to use.

I didn't snip it. You're giving an implausible interpretation. The law doesn't cover all possible facets of interactions or ways of addressing people. There is no reason to believe it's reach extends so far as to require the use of gendered language in any context where it is not ordinarily required. The language in the examples provided clarifies:

a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear that she uses she/her and Ms.


b. Refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, insisting on calling a non-binary person “Mr.” after they have requested to be called “Mx.”


c. Conditioning a person’s use of their name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender man who introduces himself as Manuel by that name because his identification lists his name as Maribel.

The first two provide examples where refusal to use a person's name, pronouns, or title occurs when you use a different name, pronoun or title than preferred. The third item clarifies that the name stated on identification is not a valid reason not to use a person's preferred name when you are referring to them or addressing them by name.

Nothing in those examples or the wording in the legislation indicates that I could walk around the office barking at people, "CALL ME ME. RIGHT NOW OR I WILL HUMAN RGHTS COMPLAINT YOUR ASS!" Nothing indicates that if an incident report was written about me and I was referred to as 'the employee', I'd be able to force them to switch that language to my name or to 'she'.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, it does require you to address people with gendered language. You snipped out the part of the guidance that says exactly that.

The law requires you to use the names and pronouns of someone's choosing. It does not say you can 'opt out' by using other tactics such as referring to everyone as 'they' or by their last name only. It says you must use the name and pronouns someone instructs you to use.

I didn't snip it. You're giving an implausible interpretation. The law doesn't cover all possible facets of interactions or ways of addressing people. There is no reason to believe it's reach extends so far as to require the use of gendered language in any context where it is not ordinarily required. The language in the examples provided clarifies:

a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear that she uses she/her and Ms.


b. Refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, insisting on calling a non-binary person “Mr.” after they have requested to be called “Mx.”


c. Conditioning a person’s use of their name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender man who introduces himself as Manuel by that name because his identification lists his name as Maribel.

The first two provide examples where refusal to use a person's name, pronouns, or title occurs when you use a different name, pronoun or title than preferred. The third item clarifies that the name stated on identification is not a valid reason not to use a person's preferred name when you are referring to them or addressing them by name.

Nothing in those examples or the wording in the legislation indicates that I could walk around the office barking at people, "CALL ME ME. RIGHT NOW OR I WILL HUMAN RGHTS COMPLAINT YOUR ASS!" Nothing indicates that if an incident report was written about me and I was referred to as 'the employee', I'd be able to force them to switch that language to my name or to 'she'.

No, the guidance does not say people can be compelled to say something when they would have said nothing at all.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I didn't snip it. You're giving an implausible interpretation. The law doesn't cover all possible facets of interactions or ways of addressing people. There is no reason to believe it's reach extends so far as to require the use of gendered language in any context where it is not ordinarily required. The language in the examples provided clarifies:



The first two provide examples where refusal to use a person's name, pronouns, or title occurs when you use a different name, pronoun or title than preferred. The third item clarifies that the name stated on identification is not a valid reason not to use a person's preferred name when you are referring to them or addressing them by name.

Nothing in those examples or the wording in the legislation indicates that I could walk around the office barking at people, "CALL ME ME. RIGHT NOW OR I WILL HUMAN RGHTS COMPLAINT YOUR ASS!" Nothing indicates that if an incident report was written about me and I was referred to as 'the employee', I'd be able to force them to switch that language to my name or to 'she'.

No, the guidance does not say people can be compelled to say something when they would have said nothing at all.

The guidance also does not say people can be compelled to use gendered language in situations where they are not ordinarily required to.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

New Regency will redevelop Rub & Tug into a TV series, with the pilot to be written by Emmy-nominated writer-producer Our Lady J. There is also a commitment to cast a trans actor to play the show’s lead role of Dante “Tex” Gill, the infamous transgender gangster who became an unlikely major figure in the criminal underworld of ’70s Pittsburgh.


When Deadline first broke news that New Regency had won a script auction for Gill’s story with Scarlett Johansson attached to play Gill and Rupert Sanders directing, an outcry followed in the LGBTQ+ community, and the ensuing pressure prompted the exit of Johansson — who had previously been maligned for the Sanders-directed Japanese anime adaptation Ghost in the Shell.

https://deadline.com/2020/07/rub-an...g-pittsburgh-massage-parlor-owner-1202990712/

 

[KeepTalking]

It's already been quoted to you.

No it hasn't, because it is not in the law.

Now, if you are objecting that the legal enforcement guidance isn't legislation

I am because it isn't. It wasn't voted on by the legislature.

that's a nonsense objection.

No, it isn't. It may be a technical objection, but it is not nonsense. The word "law" has specific meanings, and "guideline" is not one of those meanings.

Rulings made by judges are not legislation but they are the law.

In a different sense of the word. What was that about fallacies earlier?

This isn't legal enforcement guidance written by a third party. It is written as guidance on how to interpret the law and how the law will be enforced.

What do you mean it wasn't written by a third party? Do you have evidence that the guideline was written by the same legislator, or legislators who authored the law? If so, I would like to see it.

You would not necessarily be guilty of the law for doing that. There is the possibility that you would be charged under this law if you did so repeatedly and deliberately. However, one should note that "deliberately" is a very hard thing to prove, so doing only what you describe would likely not even get you charged, and it is very unlikely that you would be found guilty for only doing that. It would be an indication that you are discriminating against that person, and if you are doing that, you are likely also doing other things to that person that are also discriminatory, and your repeated and deliberate insults would only be part of the whole. I recall that you are really passionate about things that are a part of a whole, so maybe phrasing it that way will help you out.

Refusing to use the name or pronouns is itself the discrimination. It stands on its own.

Once again, only repeated and deliberate use is indication of discrimination. And it is only discrimination punishable by this law if you are an employer, provider of public accommodations, or provider of public housing. How can you not realize that repeatedly and deliberately antagonizing a transgender by referring to them in a way that is hurtful and objectionable to them is discrimination? It is no different than using the n-word repeatedly and deliberately when referring to a black person, something that is recognized as discrimination around the world, even in Australia. And even though Australia has a law against racial discrimination, you are free to type that word here in this forum while you sit in Australia, and have done so several times. Your speech is not compelled. On the other hand, if you were hiring someone, and repeatedly used that word while interviewing them, you would be running afoul of that law, yet your speech is not being compelled. Rather, you are being discriminatory to a potential hire based upon their race.

 

[KeepTalking]

Why do you keep speaking in ifs? Why can't we discuss the actual law? And why can't you show the text from the law that compels speech?

Again, I already replied to that objection of yours.

And I have already replied to your objection, so where does that leave us? Can I only object to your incorrect reasoning once, or shouldn't I be expected to do se every time you continue to use that same incorrect reasoning?

You say it is not the law that compels speech. Well, then, the New York City Commission on Human Rights misinterprets the law, but that is still Woke government compelled speech, only not by law, but by misinterpretation of the law by Woke officials in official documents.

I am making multiple arguments. The first (not chronologically) is that the wording that you feel compels speech is not in the law itself. It isn't, I have posted a link to the text of the law, and you will not find that wording in the law. That is more of a technical argument, however, and doesn't really strike at the heart of the matter. The next argument is that even with the guideline taken into account, speech is not compelled. The guideline instructs one how to determine if one is being discriminatory to transgenders. One of those ways is by antagonizing them through the use of language. Doing so to any protected class will run afoul of discrimination laws because what you say is very much an indicator of whether or not you are discriminating against a protected class. That does not mean that anti-discrimination laws are compelling speach.

 

[KeepTalking]

I'm a bit put off by the second item in the guidance:

2. Refusing To Allow People To Utilize Single-Gender Facilities and Programs Most Closely Aligned with Their Gender

The NYCHRL requires that people be permitted to use single-gender facilities, such as restrooms or locker rooms, and to participate in single-gender programs, that most closely align with their gender, regardless of their gender expression, sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, or the sex or gender indicated on their identification. Covered entities that have single-occupancy restrooms should make clear that they can be used by people of all genders. 18

Some people, including customers, other program participants, tenants, or employees, may object to sharing a facility or participating in a program with a transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming person. Such objections are not a lawful reason to deny access to that transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming person. In those circumstances, a covered entity may offer alternatives for the individual expressing discomfort, by, for example, providing a single-occupancy restroom to change in.

That seems to suggest that if a female bodied person, in a female locker room, is uncomfortable having a male-bodied person who self-identifies as a woman in there with her... then the female-bodied person is the one who is expected to leave the female locker room?

Yes, that is correct. Just as if a black bodied person enters a locker room, and a white bodied person is uncomfortable with it, then it is the white bodied person who is expected to leave.

Also, have you considered from your perspective the case of a transgender who identifies as a female entering a male locker room, and the cis males in the locker room being uncomfortable with it. I can assure you that would happen, and in that case, what is the recourse for the transgender, are they forbidden from both locker rooms because they make cis people uncomfortable?

 

[KeepTalking]

Then I think you might want to sit down, because I am going to knock your socks off.


Get ready:

Sex Sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.

Sex has had more than one meaning this whole time!
Aren't you glad you are sitting down?

Interesting. It seems as though you feel you're very clever. Even though a middle-schooler would understand the context within which the definition of sex was being supplied, and would additionally be able to accurately identify where the substantial shift in definition is occurring

I was being snarky. It was unwarranted, and I apologize.

My point was that words have multiple meanings, which wasn't as apt as I thought at the time. The better point is that the meaning of words change over time. For example, the word "web", for hundreds of years it has had the same few specific meanings, but in the last few decades it has gained a new meeting, and we are communicating over a technology using that new meaning of web right now.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it isn't. It may be a technical objection, but it is not nonsense. The word "law" has specific meanings, and "guideline" is not one of those meanings.

Yes, it's a nonsense objection. The law will be understood by the guidance provided, just as common law is understood by the guidance provided by judges.

What do you mean it wasn't written by a third party? Do you have evidence that the guideline was written by the same legislator, or legislators who authored the law? If so, I would like to see it.

Oh sure. The guidance is meaningless and isn't how the law will be understood and applied.

Once again, only repeated and deliberate use is indication of discrimination. And it is only discrimination punishable by this law if you are an employer, provider of public accommodations, or provider of public housing. How can you not realize that repeatedly and deliberately antagonizing a transgender by referring to them in a way that is hurtful and objectionable to them is discrimination? It is no different than using the n-word repeatedly and deliberately when referring to a black person, something that is recognized as discrimination around the world, even in Australia. And even though Australia has a law against racial discrimination, you are free to type that word here in this forum while you sit in Australia, and have done so several times. Your speech is not compelled. On the other hand, if you were hiring someone, and repeatedly used that word while interviewing them, you would be running afoul of that law, yet your speech is not being compelled. Rather, you are being discriminatory to a potential hire based upon their race.

"That word"? What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[KeepTalking]

Yes, it's a nonsense objection. The law will be understood by the guidance provided, just as common law is understood by the guidance provided by judges.

No, it isn't a nonsense objection. The words that you think compel speech were not in the text of the law which was written and voted on by the legislature. There is nothing nonsensical about that statement, and it is entirely true. If that were not the case, you would be able to point to that wording in the law itself.

Oh sure. The guidance is meaningless and isn't how the law will be understood and applied.

I never said that. Do you not understand the meaning of a technical objection?

Once again, only repeated and deliberate use is indication of discrimination. And it is only discrimination punishable by this law if you are an employer, provider of public accommodations, or provider of public housing. How can you not realize that repeatedly and deliberately antagonizing a transgender by referring to them in a way that is hurtful and objectionable to them is discrimination? It is no different than using the n-word repeatedly and deliberately when referring to a black person, something that is recognized as discrimination around the world, even in Australia. And even though Australia has a law against racial discrimination, you are free to type that word here in this forum while you sit in Australia, and have done so several times. Your speech is not compelled. On the other hand, if you were hiring someone, and repeatedly used that word while interviewing them, you would be running afoul of that law, yet your speech is not being compelled. Rather, you are being discriminatory to a potential hire based upon their race.

"That word"? What the fuck are you talking about?

I have boldfaced the word in question for you, you will notice that it was used in the sentence immediately proceeding the one in which you became confused about the word to which I was referring. Now, would you like to discuss the actual point I made there?

 

[Metaphor]

No, it isn't a nonsense objection. The words that you think compel speech were not in the text of the law which was written and voted on by the legislature. There is nothing nonsensical about that statement, and it is entirely true. If that were not the case, you would be able to point to that wording in the law itself.

Evidently you place a great deal of value on the difference between 'in the text of the legislation' and 'in the guidance material which determines how the legislation will be applied.'

I have boldfaced the word in question for you, you will notice that it was used in the sentence immediately proceeding the one in which you became confused about the word to which I was referring. Now, would you like to discuss the actual point I made there?

The fact that you regard repeatedly using the word "nigger" equivalent or analogous to not using somebody's preferred pronouns tells me enough to know you are not somebody who can usefully be engaged on this subject.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, it isn't a nonsense objection. The words that you think compel speech were not in the text of the law which was written and voted on by the legislature. There is nothing nonsensical about that statement, and it is entirely true. If that were not the case, you would be able to point to that wording in the law itself.

Evidently you place a great deal of value on the difference between 'in the text of the legislation' and 'in the guidance material which determines how the legislation will be applied.'

Whether or not I place a great deal of value on the statement has no bearing on whether it is true or sensible.

I have boldfaced the word in question for you, you will notice that it was used in the sentence immediately proceeding the one in which you became confused about the word to which I was referring. Now, would you like to discuss the actual point I made there?

The fact that you regard repeatedly using the word "nigger" equivalent or analogous to not using somebody's preferred pronouns tells me enough to know you are not somebody who can usefully be engaged on this subject.

So, this is the crux of the matter. It isn't that this compels speech, because you are fine with similar guidelines that would include the n-word as an indicator of discrimination. The problem is that you don't think that people repeatedly and deliberately insulting trans people through their use of pronouns is an indication of discrimination. In that case, I am sure transgenders everywhere can be relieved that you are not the arbiter of what does and does not constitute discrimination against them.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm a bit put off by the second item in the guidance:

2. Refusing To Allow People To Utilize Single-Gender Facilities and Programs Most Closely Aligned with Their Gender

The NYCHRL requires that people be permitted to use single-gender facilities, such as restrooms or locker rooms, and to participate in single-gender programs, that most closely align with their gender, regardless of their gender expression, sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, or the sex or gender indicated on their identification. Covered entities that have single-occupancy restrooms should make clear that they can be used by people of all genders. 18

Some people, including customers, other program participants, tenants, or employees, may object to sharing a facility or participating in a program with a transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming person. Such objections are not a lawful reason to deny access to that transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming person. In those circumstances, a covered entity may offer alternatives for the individual expressing discomfort, by, for example, providing a single-occupancy restroom to change in.

That seems to suggest that if a female bodied person, in a female locker room, is uncomfortable having a male-bodied person who self-identifies as a woman in there with her... then the female-bodied person is the one who is expected to leave the female locker room?

Generally, when restrooms are made available to the public (including customers of businesses open to the general public) or to employees or other similar situations, individuals using the restrooms aren't granted veto power over other occupants. The law recognizes gender identity as a valid criterion for using specific gender/ sex-segregated spaces. It can't really make that conditional on the opinions or approval of other occupants. Discomfort with others in a restroom is a difficult standard to apply. What if that discomfort is based on race or religion or age or sexual orientation or just general appearance? Who gets to veto whom and how do with manage this process? How accountable is the law to discomfort with others?

It's not that the person experiencing discomfort is expected to leave. They still retain the right to use the women's room. But where their discomfort is the area of conflict and concern, the proposed solution is to offer them additional accommodation where possible rather than place restrictions on others who ordinarily have a recognized right to use the space. I will say if transgender people--men, women and non-binary alike--required the approval of others using the restroom, it would be grossly impractical for us to ever take a piss anywhere which didn't have single-occupancy or gender-neutral facilities.

As a big-picture concept, sure, it makes sense as long as the number of people made uncomfortable are very few and as long as the people identifying as trans are all honest and there are no bad-actors or pervs taking advantage of the situation.

The way this law is written would allow, for example, Trump to saunter into the locker room at the local community swimming pool and check out the 14 year olds with impunity, simply by saying "I'm a transwoman". And if the 14 yos or their parents complain, they are the ones considered in the wrong. The person in charge of the swimming pool has no recourse to judge whether or not Trump is actually a transwoman or not, and must allow her entry to the locker room. It ends up being the 14 yos who are required to go somewhere else if they don't want Trump checking out their budding boobies.

 

[Emily Lake]

I was being snarky. It was unwarranted, and I apologize.

Accepted

My point was that words have multiple meanings, which wasn't as apt as I thought at the time. The better point is that the meaning of words change over time. For example, the word "web", for hundreds of years it has had the same few specific meanings, but in the last few decades it has gained a new meeting, and we are communicating over a technology using that new meaning of web right now.

Yes, I am well aware that words have multiple meanings. in this instance, however, this is not a definition that has naturally evolved. It is, in fact, a definition in contradiction to what has been very painstakingly taught for the last couple of decades. Probably longer than that, but only a common discussion within the last couple of decades as trangender people made more progress in not being ostracized.

For the last many years, there's been a lot of effort put into making a distinction between 'sex' and 'gender'. There's been a focus on explaining to people that gender is distinct from, and separate from, sex. Sex refers to the biological and physical characteristics associated with having a particular chromosomal pair. Gender refers to the presentation and internal identity aspect of an individual. Thus, the argument made is that a person could have been born with a male body, but could actually have the identity and feelings of a female person, thus they were considered a woman. Vice versa is also included, of course. The emphasis of this shift in language is an effort to distinguish 'male' from 'man' and 'female' from 'woman'.

This definition not only conflates sex and gender, it insists that the primary determinant of sex is gender identity. In essence, it completely redefines 'sex' to be synonymous with 'gender'. Not only that, it actually goes further, and it subordinates physical and biological sex to gender identity.

The result of this is that, by this definition, I am not female because I have a uterus and ovaries and a cervix and two X chromosomes. I'm female because I identify as a woman. If I were to identify as a man, then by this definition my sex would be male... despite the fact that I have a uterus and ovaries and a cervix. This definition also makes the job of biologists quite a bit harder. They would no longer be able to rely on checking out the genitalia or chromosomal information of a horse and being able to determine whether it was a male or a female horse. Rather, they would need to be able to somehow infer whether or not that particular horse identified as a 'mare' or a 'stallion'.

And frankly, that's absurd.