Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence
164 replies, posted
You do not know if the full quote lacks the said word as you do not know the full quote. Unless you assume baseless extrapolation from the source.
So here's the part I don't get: isn't that what the law currently states? Doesn't it say that 'sex' is a protected characteristic, but has no mention of gender identity?
Would the solution be to change the law instead of shoehorning gender under the laws about sex because they aren't the same thing?
I don't think that's quite right. There was a recognized differentiation until very recently. The Obama admin actively tried to combine the two under "sex" protections. Before then, I believe there was a clear differentiation.
The quote in the article could be shortening. Additionally, how do you know the word content of the quote but not the actual quote?
This is the quote they provide: "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable."
They then put the idea of "gender" into the source's mouth, but never directly quote them as mentioning it. They, instead, quote them talking about 'sex' multiple times.
So yeah, sorry, when they put words into the source's mouth that don't show up literally anywhere in the actual quotes I get a little suspicious.
Psychologists didn't differentiate until the early 1900s if I recall correctly. Up until that point, gender and sex weren't at all different in the eyes of basically everyone. And so our government's methods of dealing with them also treated them the same. After that distinction was made, the government continued using sex as the relevant term. With Obama they had more or less made efforts to transition over to using gender instead since only adhering to sex has issues when it comes to transgender people. (And those with intersex conditions as well.)
Logically it makes more sense to use gender for anything other than medical capacities (where chromosomes and such can actually be important) but there's a lot of people who are very reluctant to even accept there's a distinction, let alone accepting that gender is the better characteristic to make use of.
I don't necessarily even disagree with anything you said here.
The part I don't understand is why you guys want to try and shoehorn gender under explicit sex protections (made under the idea of barring sexism) as opposed to just adding gender to the list.
Yes and no. You are massively oversimplifying the issue. The federal law doesn't explicitly include mentions of "gender identity," but it also doesn't mention how to handle cases wherein the plaintiff has had sexual reassignment surgery and has legally changed their sex before a court of law. The states also have a patchwork of conflicting laws in which some recognize that a person has changed sex after SRS while others don't, some have more stringent requirements than others, and some even allow the person to change the sex marker on their birth certificate retroactively. There are also those who identify as a particular gender and fully intend to have sexual reassignment, but these things take time. As a result, they live as their preferred gender for years while waiting on the surgery. The federal government had to take numerous different factors into consideration, and so the absence of a hard "yes" wasn't necessarily a hard "no."
The Obama administration and Democrats at large want to see lawful protection extended to all of these people. Laws take time to go into effect, but regulations can be changed instantly. So they changed the regulation pending law change. Trump and the Republicans want to see none of these people receive protection under the law. That's why they're not only reversing Obama's policy, but also planting new regulatory language which essentially a hard "no" at every turn.
Again, stop acting like you don't understand this. This government is out to hurt people and you know it.
apparently there's no way Canada would take me in because I don't have any in-demand qualifications so I guess I'm just fucked
I believe Canada would consider taking you in on grounds of asylum but that would be very difficult to acquire. It's stupid that such a thing even needs to be considered. There are a variety of other methods other than the skilled-worker method, so I recommend trying whatever you can.
I couldn't afford it so it doesn't matter anyway
Well, congratulations. How on earth did you remember?
When you make ridiculous and seemingly implausible claims, those tend to stick in people's heads. It's much easier, too, when you can just bookmark permanent links to posts for later summoning.
I keep my promises
Now ur turn dumbass
how do you stay so self-righteously smug in the face of being proven wrong in your support of someone so oppressive against transgender people that his administration is trying to legally define them out of existence?
Doesn't look like they're smug to me. Looks like they're trying to 'put on a front' of being smug/condescending when, in truth, they know that they've lost that battle the moment it started. The only thing left to do, then, is to save face and accuse the other person of something like 'you're crazy' or 'do you have anything better to do' or 'so what if I did? why do you care so much about me?'
Basically, the goal is to redirect the attention to the person calling them out so as to minimize the damage done to their credibility. This only works if nobody was paying attention to begin with; this was not a smart move on their part.
so not smug, but something worse. got it
some people hold their word, unlike a certain president
how's your lgbt friends doing
TBH my motivation isn't even complex I just remembered what he said and wanted to call him a retard as he desperately tries to do damage control also because he is legit the worst poster on this site lmao
How much is it going to cost you, do you have a budget planned out? Passport? I can help with money, we can help with money.
This has happened with new zealand accepting a trans person from the UK so it's possible at least.
Can't imagine what it would feel like to know that over half the federal government hates me and doesn't believe that I exist. Unfortunately more red meat for Trump's rabid base before the elections.
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.”
"By which we mean of course a definition that ignores science entirely because fuck the trannies amirite?"
Jesus, these fucking shitheaps of people.
Don't forget the people who try to argue that their knowledge from 6th grade biology is superior to insurmountable amounts of psychological research and studies on gender. By that logic, I learned in 1st grade that you can't subtract big numbers from smaller numbers so I guess negative numbers don't exist.
As is usual for you, you bring nothing to the table but semantics and interpretations of legal definitions and pedantic differences in language and totally ignore the human element of what the fuck is actually happening, that being a far right-wing government trying to remove protections for a minority group that they don't like. Have you ever considered stepping out of your box? There's more to life and how society is structured than what the law says and how it is interpreted. Stop being a robot.
t. person unaffected by discriminatory policies
must be nice to have no stake in the game huh
Does your rant have a point other than you feeling offended that your fence-sitting ass is getting called out for being the most useless part of politics?
Honestly, all the self-called conservatives I know have moved away from the term because of shit like this.
It's no secret that both parties in the US are absoulete shit but it'd be foolish to say that they're on the same level of bullshitery.
The GOP has betrayed every single goddamn value it said it stands for, and sure the same can be said for the DNC< but at teh same time, at least the DNC isn't trying to revoke people's rights.
Okay, so either you're a troll or an idiot. I'm going to bite anyway.
Yeah, you can put blame on both sides. But that's not mutually exclusive with saying that one side is obviously worse than the other.
The Democrats fucked up by shooing away Bernie Sanders. They fucked up with the email servers. They fucked up with their campaign, thinking they'd win no matter what, ignoring the working class, and running a purely "we're not them" campaign.
That doesn't mean you can't point to literally anything Trump is doing and say "yeah, the Republicans are obviously worse".
What's the worst thing the Democrats have done in recent history? Have unsecured email? Have someone who wants healthcare?
You can argue Obama continuing the drone strikes and wars in the Middle East were bad, but guess what, the Republicans were completely behind those too. If anything, it's other Democrats complaining about those.
There's Bill Clinton's affair, but
uh
look in Trump's general direction
Worst thing Republicans hav
separating families and putting children in camps
trying to negate LGBT rights
worsening the environment
politicizing the SCOTUS, and playing dirty with it
cooperated with the Russians during the election in order to sway it
fucked up trade and the economy
made a completely corrupt white house
when faced with actual neo-nazis (who killed someone!) said "eh, both sides are bad"
also what the fuck is your math
My guy, you're not a judge for nesting your ass firmly on that fence post, you're a bystander at best. I get it, you like to look at both sides. So do many people. But there is a difference between you and them. While they take it as an opportunity to examine both sides and decide which one to support or try to fix the issues present in the more favorable side so it can be actually bridge gaps, you and your brand of cowards sit on your ass and do absolutely nothing but judge anyone with any semblance of backbone.
You can also drop the moralizing. Shit makes you look two-faced.
Buddy, I'm a firm hater of the idea of identity politics, like I welcome talking to people who are conservative but aren't GOP levels of conservative, but I'm still a pretty hardline liberal.
There's a very thin line between "calling people out on their bullshit" and "trying too hard to look nuanced", and you're definietly on the latter here.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.