• Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence
    164 replies, posted
Roberts is conservative but cares about his legacy, I'll take him ruling against his own beliefs for the institution of the court if the alternative is if transgender people don't have rights.
This would likely take nearly a year at the absolute earliest before it's seen at the Supreme Court and who knows what could happen between then and now. The Dems have also rapid fire confirmed dozens upon dozens of Trump nominated lifetime appointment judges across district and circuit courts, that will uphold this in the meantime. The luckiest we can get will either be that the SCOTUS strikes down something like half the order and leave the other half in place or democrats win both the house and senate and all of a sudden actually firmly stand up for trans peoples' rights.
"Oh but sharia law is fine in our allies like Saudi Arabia, god bless those fellas!"
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/251786/c1c00b0f-5055-4eec-a471-d1f9ed599ec5/image.png @Freezorg promised u i was keeping a note of this post
lmfao is this your third or fourth alt? i'd say 'don't you have anything better to do' but we both know the answer to that, don't we?
Reminder to not reply or even rate blatant gimmicks unless you want them to keep coming back Just stop giving them attention jc
Can someone explain to me why this article equates "sex" and "gender?" I honestly don't understand. I thought one of the focal points of LGBTQ argumentation was to differentiate the two.
He's gotta have something to do inbetween crying about how pathetic their life is
The article states that the conservative talk point is to combine gender into sex.
Are you sure? The article seems to say the opposite. it says: "For the last year, the Department of Health and Human Services has privately argued that the term “sex” was never meant to include gender identity or even homosexuality" Based on this article, it seems that the Obama admin tried to expand "sex" to also include "gender," and the conservatives are trying to separate them.
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. So Obama Admin set them as separate. 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.” Thus the current administration is trying to combine them.
You're selectively quoting. The civil protections generally refer to "sex" and not to "gender." In order to provide those same protections to "gender," the Obama admin argued that protections for "sex" also applied to "gender," therefore combining them into one protected category. The conservatives are trying to argue that "sex" only applies to one's biological sex, and not to "gender" as well. For example, the conservatives are appealing to court cases where justices have confirmed that "sex" does not include "gender identity." In the words of the article: "Health and human services officials [under Trump] said they were only abiding by court orders, referring to the rulings of Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth, Tex., a George W. Bush appointee who has held that “Congress did not understand ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’” On the other hand, the liberals are appealing to cases where courts have established that "gender" protections are included in "sex" protections: "But in recent discussions with the administration, civil rights groups, including Lambda Legal, have pointed to other court cases. In a legal memo presented to the administration, a coalition of civil rights groups wrote, “The overwhelming majority of courts to address the question since the most relevant Supreme Court precedent in 1998 have held that antitransgender bias constitutes sex discrimination under federal laws like Title IX.”" You'll notice that the word "gender" isn't in the actual quote. It's added by the author of the article. The actual quote, in the words actually quoted by the admin they explicitly say "sex," not "gender," hence my confusion. Even though the conservatives explicitly say they are defining "sex," the author continually replaces it with the word "gender."
DHHS is arguing that protections against sexual discrimination shouldn't include protections against discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. At the same time, the Trump administration is trying to tie the legal definition of gender to sex at birth. The effect of the first point is this: if a trans male employee is told they must wear a female uniform and use the women's bathroom or else face termination, the Trump administration does not want them to be able to use existing laws protecting against sexual discrimination to bring legal action against their employer. The effect of the second point is this: if that same employee still wishes to bring suit against the employer, the administration would want their case dismissed out of hand on the basis that the employee was born a woman and regardless of the opinion of damn near the entire medical and psychological community, she still is one, and there is no discrimination in forcing a woman to wear women's clothing and use the women's restroom.
Can you provide the original quote?
As if you have any room to complain about someone doing that considering how often you do the same. Also why start splitting hairs in a new discussion when you seemingly bailed on another when someone asked you a straightforward question? For someone who complains so much about how people treat him differently now you sure do an awful job of exacerbating the situation.
I totally agree with the first part, but I'm not quite seeing the second part. It seems like they're saying that gender identity isn't a protected class, and that you can't therefore claim discrimination based on it, not that it's equivalent to sex. I can't because it's not cited anywhere in the article. I can refer to to every other quote from the admin in the article that uses the word "sex," and not "gender." For example: “Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.” As I quoted before, the health department is also explicitly arguing that "sex" doesn't include "gender identity:" For the last year, the Department of Health and Human Services has privately argued that the term “sex” was never meant to include gender identity or even homosexuality
Sgman. This is getting to like "Well she shouldn't be standing behind the father" levels of dumb.
TBH, I came back to like 10 responses and haven't even looked yet. I'll get around to it.
I don't think any of the people here actually cared about LGBT rights, they just wanted other people to think Trump did.
It really doesn't make much sense to get involved in another discussion only adding to the number of responses you have to deal with, no?
I don't mind having a few conversations, but it's a little annoying/disheartening to have like 10 people refer to your post in one thread. It's impossible to respond to everyone adequately, and then someone is going to start insulting me because I didn't directly respond to them. Sometimes it's better to just stop trying once it gets to that point. The fact that no one is even really responding in that thread makes it pretty easy to ignore it all, though.
Jesus christ, what the fuck am I supposed to do now? I can't afford to move to Canada
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. The administration doesn't want gender identity playing a role in any legal conflict. The agencies and the courts responsible for defending against discrimination will be asked not to look at gender identity, but exclusively at sex, thus tying the issues together. In the example I gave you above, the trans male employee tries to bring the issue up in court or to a relevant agency and is met with "well, let's see your birth certificate... Hmm, it says here you were born a woman, so you have no case." And if the employee has had sexual reassignment surgery and disputes what their birth certificate says, the court or agency will say "Let's get a sample of your DNA, then. Hmm... no, you still have two X chromosomes, so even though you have a beard, there's nothing legally wrong with forcing you to wear a skirt and use the women's bathroom." The administration is trying to bully these people out of existence by taking away their legal standing. The logic is as clear as crystal. Please stop muddying the waters.
A simple way around this is to not go out of your way to defend widespread voter suppression as a matter of course.
I'm freaking the fuck out right now, this is the worst birthday present ever
Then how can you claim that the quote in the article is not direct and has been added to?
Because apparently the administration deserves the benefit of the doubt, but the press doesn't.
You agreed with basically everything I said... and then ended the post by saying I'm muddying the waters. What? I don't disagree with your general analysis, though I wouldn't go quite so far as your conclusions. So I go back to my original confusion: are sex and gender different, or are they the same? If they're different, then why should a law about 'sex' also apply to 'gender?' ... because the word 'gender' isn't in the quote. It's the word of the author, not the person being quoted. Every quote from the admin says 'sex,' not 'gender.'
They're different in reality, but the administration does not want to accept reality. They want to prevent issues of discrimination which hinge on gender identity from progressing in court, so they are forcing the agencies and courts to ignore gender identity and focus exclusively on "the genitals that a person is born with." This has been abundantly clear since the very beginning. You're muddying the waters by acting like there's any confusion or ambiguity to begin with, making us spoon-feed it to you only so you can pretend not to understand it further.
Sex and gender are different. Sex refers to physical characteristics while gender refers to mental ones. The source of conflict here comes from the fact that there really wasn't a distinction until relatively recently and for most people they appear to be the same thing, despite being different, because they have the same answer for most people. A cisgendered male will have both a gender and sex of male while a transgender female would have a sex of male and gender of female, for example. And since transgender people make up a small proportion of the populace it's only been relatively recently that the distinction has made its way into the public perception.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.