Trump wants to pretend that transgendered folks don't exist

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

You mean like the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It prohibits discrimination based on gender. If we don't describe what gender is, it'd be hard for someone to make a claim that they were discriminated over gender.

 

[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.

You mean like the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It prohibits discrimination based on gender. If we don't describe what gender is, it'd be hard for someone to make a claim that they were discriminated over gender.

That doesn't compute. If you discriminate against me because you presume me to be female, when actually I am male, is this not still gender discrimination? How does this have to hinge on a legal definition of gender?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You mean like the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It prohibits discrimination based on gender. If we don't describe what gender is, it'd be hard for someone to make a claim that they were discriminated over gender.

That doesn't compute.

Well, I'm not stunned.

If you discriminate against me because you presume me to be female, when actually I am male, is this not still gender discrimination?

Jebus! JP has gone dismal on us. You asked for legislation, I gave you legislation, now you need to resort to ridiculous hypotheticals to deflect from the fact that your point was quite dull.

 

[Politesse]

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.

We've been seeing more non-gendered bathrooms out here on the West Coast lately. It would be a neat way to circumvent the law even in more oppressive states.

 

[bilby]

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.

Trump will get them their Badensraum.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well, I'm not stunned.

If you discriminate against me because you presume me to be female, when actually I am male, is this not still gender discrimination?

Jebus! JP has gone dismal on us. You asked for legislation, I gave you legislation, now you need to resort to ridiculous hypotheticals to deflect from the fact that your point was quite dull.

No, I asked why you need a legal definition of gender. You don't need it for that law.

 

[blastula]

You need a definition if you want to allow gender based discrimination.

 

[Opoponax]

Well, I'm not stunned.

If you discriminate against me because you presume me to be female, when actually I am male, is this not still gender discrimination?

Jebus! JP has gone dismal on us. You asked for legislation, I gave you legislation, now you need to resort to ridiculous hypotheticals to deflect from the fact that your point was quite dull.

No, I asked why you need a legal definition of gender. You don't need it for that law.

There's an equal protection argument in here somewhere.

As of now, the Court doesn't recognize non-heterosexuals or the non-cis gendered as being protected classes when in fact, they bear all the same hallmarks the Court has always used to determine when a class needs protecting. For example gender and "illegitimate" children both get intermediate scrutiny (the law in question must further an important interest and be substantially related to achieving that interest) due to past discrimination and in an attempt to ensure those classes aren't discriminated against on those bases. Further, the burden of proof falls on the government to show the law/regulation is important and the law substantially serves those important goals.

OTOH, everything else (except race and national origin = strict scrutiny) falls under what's called rational basis scrutiny wherein the burden falls on the plaintiff to show that the law is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. It is difficult to prove a law doesn't meet RB scrutiny. This is where non-cis folks fall. The effect of this is pretending that past discrimination hasn't occurred and that there is no need to protect against present discrimination.

On the other, other hand, if gender is to be so fluid, and can change literally within hours, then when would such a person receive intermediate scrutiny and when would they expect rational basis? Fortunately for homosexuals, this doesn't present a problem, but for others it does. What I'm getting at is that with no objective test, the struggle to gain greater protection and prevent discrimination via legal means is all but impossible. And it's not unreasonable for a court to question it. Courts can question the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs, so it stands to reason that a court can question the gender claims of any given individual when their birth certificate and actual genitalia say contrary.

 

[repoman]

Don't let gender fluid actively fuck things up for fully transgender people or be used cynically as tool to deprive trans of legitimacy.

A real transgender would be actively trying to express their trans-ness even in the face of threats of physical violence, they have just about no choice. Would these gender fluid people do the same? Sounds like it might be narcissism and boredom for them.

Between gender fluid tumblr wackjobs, bible bangers and transwomen who enter women's sports and demolish competitors the humble true transgenders are still facing problems of legitimacy.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You need a definition if you want to allow gender based discrimination.

Exactly. I see no other reason. Is there one?

 

[Arctish]

You need a definition if you want to allow gender based discrimination.

You need a definition if you want to disallow it, too.

Before you can address a problem you have to first identify it. If you need others to help you address it, you have to show that the problem exists. If you want to address the problem through policies and legislation you have to be very specific about what it is, why it's a problem, and what you propose to do about it.

And then you have to argue with the deliberately obtuse who claim that by specifying gender based discrimination, the proposed legislation is horribly discriminatory against people who face other kinds of discrimination or no discrimination but who'd feel left out if the legislation didn't mention them specifically.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, I'm not stunned.

If you discriminate against me because you presume me to be female, when actually I am male, is this not still gender discrimination?

Jebus! JP has gone dismal on us. You asked for legislation, I gave you legislation, now you need to resort to ridiculous hypotheticals to deflect from the fact that your point was quite dull.

No, I asked why you need a legal definition of gender. You don't need it for that law.

Gee... I guess lawsuits regarding that Act and whether the language of “sex” (I believe it mentions the term ‘sex’) of a person applies to perceived gender and not just physical gender are just a bunch of foolish lawyers. After all, according JP, you can have laws with words that have no definitions.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And then you have to argue with the deliberately obtuse who claim that by specifying gender based discrimination, the proposed legislation is horribly discriminatory against people who face other kinds of discrimination or no discrimination but who'd feel left out if the legislation didn't mention them specifically.

Why go through all those identity politics when you could simply ban discrimination not based on merit or based on characteristics not essential to a judgement?

Is it less wrong to discriminate against an individual for their outward gender appearance than to discriminate against them for their chromosomes?

For that matter, is it less wrong to discriminate against an individual for being a redhead or having green eyes than to discriminate against them based on race or gender?

 

[Politesse]

Don't let gender fluid actively fuck things up for fully transgender people or be used cynically as tool to deprive trans of legitimacy.

A real transgender would be actively trying to express their trans-ness even in the face of threats of physical violence, they have just about no choice. Would these gender fluid people do the same? Sounds like it might be narcissism and boredom for them.

Between gender fluid tumblr wackjobs, bible bangers and transwomen who enter women's sports and demolish competitors the humble true transgenders are still facing problems of legitimacy.

Because they couldn't possibly just be taking a principled stance against a social institution they see as harmful...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And then you have to argue with the deliberately obtuse who claim that by specifying gender based discrimination, the proposed legislation is horribly discriminatory against people who face other kinds of discrimination or no discrimination but who'd feel left out if the legislation didn't mention them specifically.

Why go through all those identity politics when you could simply ban discrimination not based on merit or based on characteristics not essential to a judgement?

We'd need to pass an upgrade to the Act (because the Act exists)... which won't happen because the right-wing wants to discriminate against people.

 

[repoman]

Don't let gender fluid actively fuck things up for fully transgender people or be used cynically as tool to deprive trans of legitimacy.

A real transgender would be actively trying to express their trans-ness even in the face of threats of physical violence, they have just about no choice. Would these gender fluid people do the same? Sounds like it might be narcissism and boredom for them.

Between gender fluid tumblr wackjobs, bible bangers and transwomen who enter women's sports and demolish competitors the humble true transgenders are still facing problems of legitimacy.

Because they couldn't possibly just be taking a principled stance against a social institution they see as harmful...

Like being a "gender confusion troll" because your political viewpoints about patriarchy and whatnot? That is lame and may hurt transpeople, the real ones.

 

[TSwizzle]

Why do we need a legal definition of gender?

Well how else would the California legislature be sure that California companies have women board members ?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you discriminate against me because you presume me to be female, when actually I am male, is this not still gender discrimination?

I'm not sure. Is gender discrimination the same as sex discrimination?

If the law does not define sex, yet the law bans certain instances of sex-based discrimination, then it is up to the courts to ascertain whether the specific case of discrimination that you have in mind is one case of sex-based discrimination banned by the law. In order to do that, the courts will need to use some concept of sex. As long as the concept is not specifically defined by the law, the courts would have to investigate the meaning of the relevant words at the time the statute was passed (in the case in the example under consideration, 1964), and apply it, though it gets more complicated when a superior court fails to do that, and then inferior courts are bound by precedent - or are they bound by the statute, regardless of precedent? It gets complicated.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Why do we need a legal definition of gender?

Well how else would the California legislature be sure that California companies have women board members ?

They can't make sure regardless (someone can break the law), but that aside, if they do not provide a definition, judges would have to investigate the meaning at the time the law was passed (if they were applying it properly), and then go with that. Of course, if it turns out that the word is used to mean very different things by different people in common talk, then it that creates a problem in cases in which the referents diverge.

 

[Politesse]

Why do we need a legal definition of gender?

Well how else would the California legislature be sure that California companies have women board members ?

I really hate that initiative, and think it will backfire spectacularly if it manages to actually become law.