Trump wants to pretend that transgendered folks don't exist

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.
A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of gender in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing gender largely as an individual’s choice and not determined by the sex assigned at birth. The policy prompted fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.
Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.
The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

 

[phands]

Trump Admin May Treat Trans People as Non-Existent, Revoking Legal Protections

Wow...the gop are just filth...and xtians continue to disappoint and disgust......

Here’s your daily reminder that the two major political parties are not alike, and that the one whose base is constantly whining about how Christians are being persecuted — a blatant lie — is actually persecuting other groups.


The New York Times reports that the Trump administration is planning to redefine “gender” in narrow enough terms that transgender people would be locked out of federal civil rights protections.

… the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.
The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.
​

So the same people who ignore science when it comes to climate change are now using it — or their version of what “science” says — to further hurt trans people? This is just the latest attempt by Republicans to appease a nasty subgroup of Christianity that hates “identity politics” unless it means eradicating the identities of people they don’t believe should exist.

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...e-as-non-existent-revoking-legal-protections/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lets see what biology has to say about this:

1) What about testosterone-insensitive "women"? They're XY but have female anatomy (although often it doesn't function as well as it should, fertility problems are common.) They used to think such were very rare but learned otherwise when they switched to using genetic testing to weed out men competing as women in athletic events. Too many women were coming up XY, they went back to the old way of a look downstairs.

2) What about the intersexed? Usually they have only a small aspect of the opposite gender but I have seen video of a person, apparently female, but with a dick. Entirely natural, no surgery involved.

3) What about chimeras? When you have two obvious individuals we call them siamese twins, but what happens when the extraneous part is small and not out of place? In those cases it's usually only detected if it somehow causes an issue--thus we have no data on how many really exist. (For an example, there was a woman arrested for welfare fraud because her children came back as not hers. Then baby #3 was delivered, no question it came out of her body, yet DNA still said it wasn't hers. Turns out at least part of her reproductive system wasn't hers. She obviously had a twin sister in utero that she absorbed.)

 

[bilby]

...determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

So they concede that 'by the genitals' is not, in fact, a 100% reliable way to determine sex as 'either male or female'.

Being wrong in ways that leads to evil is bad enough; But when your premise is also self refuting, that's just fucking insane.

 

[repoman]

Yeah, but for the Trump admin to lose in the few cases of the rare intersex people but be able to keep all transmen and transwomen in their biological category of being born women and men respectively is a larger victory.

I think that this will be shredded by judges.

Only good thing is it may stop the only negative associated with the new rights given to transgenders: transwomen being able to demolish cis women in sport



interesting twitter post about this

https://twitter.com/HJJoyceEcon/status/1054100028871139329

Transgender people have as much a chance to be cool or crap people as cis people, but Rachel McKinnon is human scum.

I like this comment about McKinnon:

The barrage of tweets, trying to verbally batter the women into submission, & encourage others to do the same, is chillingly familiar to the female victims of male perpetrated DV. This person could not do more to convince the world they still think like a man if they tried.

 

[Elixir]

I think that this will be shredded by judges.

If it gets to Kavanaugh and Cheato tells him what to think, that's what he's gonna think.

 

[bilby]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ScienceVet2/status/1035246030500061184

Twitter is probably not a great choice of medium here, but this is an excellent summary of the science.

You get what's called a bimodal distribution (mostly, we'll get to that later) Which looks like this. Those two big peaks are what we call "male" and "female" (even conveniently colored pink for boys and blue for girls - we are using victorian gender colors right?)

 

[Elixir]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ScienceVet2/status/1035246030500061184

Twitter is probably not a great choice of medium here, but this is an excellent summary of the science.

View attachment 18281

You get what's called a bimodal distribution (mostly, we'll get to that later) Which looks like this. Those two big peaks are what we call "male" and "female" (even conveniently colored pink for boys and blue for girls - we are using victorian gender colors right?)

Tits? Perfect.

 

[Gun Nut]

These seems right to me. You are born either male or female (or deformed in some way that makes your parents decide for you on the birth certificate) and that forever determines your legal gender. So what. You are still free to "identify" however you want. I was born outside the town that I identify with my upbringing. I still identify as being raised there. That doesn't allow me to change my birth certificate because the hospital is in the city and my home was not.
Loosey goosey terminology in the law is never a good thing. It's good to have clear definitions. Easy enough to just think of it as "legally I am male, but in REALITY I am female", or whatever.
We wouldn't have needed a legal definition if the 0.0001% of our "cultural centers" (cities) didn't insist on having one by challenging every social norm that melts their snowflakes.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why do we need a legal definition of gender?

 

[bilby]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ScienceVet2/status/1035246030500061184

Twitter is probably not a great choice of medium here, but this is an excellent summary of the science.

View attachment 18281

You get what's called a bimodal distribution (mostly, we'll get to that later) Which looks like this. Those two big peaks are what we call "male" and "female" (even conveniently colored pink for boys and blue for girls - we are using victorian gender colors right?)

Tits? Perfect.

Sorry. I boobed.

 

[ZiprHead]

According to a Health Department proposal, gender identity shall be set by genitalia only. So... does that means Trump is a fungus?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do we need a legal definition of gender?

If we don't label it, the issues will magically disappear.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why do we need a legal definition of gender?

If we don't label it, the issues will magically disappear.

Which issues do you have in mind, that require a legal definition of gender?

 

[Gun Nut]

Why do we need a legal definition of gender?

"We" don't. But because the 0.000001% of people that have rejected their born gender had their discomfort with being different raised to the highest levels by the liberals, laws were made and definitions are needed for laws to be applied with the spirit they were made.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why do we need a legal definition of gender?

"We" don't. But because the 0.000001% of people that have rejected their born gender had their discomfort with being different raised to the highest levels by the liberals, laws were made and definitions are needed for laws to be applied with the spirit they were made.

Who fucking cares how few or many of them there are? That consideration doesn't even rise to the level of trivial. If there's one transgendered person on the planet or five billion transgendered people on the planet, our attitude towards them should be exactly the same and our legal systems should take them into account.

 

[Politesse]

Why do we need a legal definition of gender?

"We" don't. But because the 0.000001% of people that have rejected their born gender had their discomfort with being different raised to the highest levels by the liberals, laws were made and definitions are needed for laws to be applied with the spirit they were made.

That's really not how any of this happened. What legislation are you even thinking about here, specifically? I don't think the LGBT lobby, generally speaking, wants to have gender defined by the government.

And the number of people born visibly intersex is about 1 in 2000, not 1 in 1000000. Let alone other conditions that might lead to feelings of gender dysphoria.

 

[Elixir]

Why do we need a legal definition of gender?

"We" don't. But because the 0.000001% of people that have rejected their born gender had their discomfort with being different raised to the highest levels by the liberals, laws were made and definitions are needed for laws to be applied with the spirit they were made.

That's really not how any of this happened. What legislation are you even thinking about here, specifically? I don't think the LGBT lobby, generally speaking, wants to have gender defined by the government.

And the number of people born visibly intersex is about 1 in 2000, not 1 in 1000000. Let alone other conditions that might lead to feelings of gender dysphoria.

The alt-right wants its bathroom space, that's all. Trump managed to get them all lathered up about who is in what bathroom, despite the utter lack of any demonstrable threat. Now they're invested in it. Which I find rather fitting, in a disgusting sort of way.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What legislation are you even thinking about here, specifically?

I'm waiting for Jimmy or anyone else to answer that same question. What laws specifically do we need legal definitions of gender for? The only reason I can think of requiring that is to discriminate against people. I'd rather not do so.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That's really not how any of this happened. What legislation are you even thinking about here, specifically? I don't think the LGBT lobby, generally speaking, wants to have gender defined by the government.

And the number of people born visibly intersex is about 1 in 2000, not 1 in 1000000. Let alone other conditions that might lead to feelings of gender dysphoria.

The alt-right wants its bathroom space, that's all. Trump managed to get them all lathered up about who is in what bathroom, despite the utter lack of any demonstrable threat. Now they're invested in it. Which I find rather fitting, in a disgusting sort of way.

I am disappointed in my fellow liberals for not pushing the bathroom issue to the obvious conclusion that there should be no segregation between bathrooms for women and for men. We could be saving building and maintenance costs.