Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence
164 replies, posted
maybe one day you'll find out what it's like to be an adult
okay everyone, it's a troll, pack up and go home
I'll give you a 6/10, you're less obvious politically, but you show the "running in circles to dodge questions" game in record time
Also you, in response to: "Anyone who dares say that both parties are the same can sincerely fuck off" :
You can weasel around and say "But I MEANT blahabnlahblha", but fact of the matter is:
-Someone said "both sides are not equal"
-You replied "fuck off, put equal blame on both sides"
Why would you reply with that if you agree with it?
Furthermore:
Expressly missing the point by a mile.
-"Centrists are useless, they're standing in the middle just for the sake of not choosing a side, when just a decade ago their current 'centrism' would be pointed out as clearly right wing." And "Centrists are looking at a guy putting children in camps and saying 'eh, both sides', they are useless for helping minorities. They don't actually care about politics, they just want to seem holier than thou."
-You: "you're going to INSULT ME? An ARBITER OF POLITICS? i'll vote for the guy putting kids in camps just to spite you, I don't care about his politics, I just want to spite you for thinking I'm not better than you"
I would ask how it's possible for someone to be so amazingly dimwitted, but I guarantee that you're just someone trolling.
if this ever passes i'm going to start publically burning flags
The implication when you say "both sides are shit" without further explanation is that both sides are the same amount of shit. If you don't mean that then fair enough but it's totally on you to explain your reasoning, not get mad when other people fail to infer it.
What exactly is the centrist, neutral position between "These people should have rights" and "These people shouldn't have rights"?
I never got this logic. If Karl Marx himself called me an asshole it's not like I'd suddenly stop supporting things like universal healthcare. Why would you let someones insults drive you to vote out of spite?
Because many Americans don't take a long view of politics. And also because many Americans are dumb.
That's exactly the issue - You're not supposed to bastardize your own beliefs by voting for something you don't quite believe in. That's being complicit in their bullshit. Accepting it. Standing where you are is way less cowardly than partaking in some shitty popularity contest between two assholes. If we continue to let a shitty two party system ruin the conversation and divide us all, it won't get us anywhere.
Honestly, it seems like we just have a fundamental disagreement. I think the actual law is important and you think the law doesn't matter as long as you get the result you want.
I'm almost certain that even if we totally agreed on the proper result, we should wouldn't agree on how to get there.
I don't see how forcing someone to be reminded that they were born the wrong sex every time they look at their ID is a good thing.
Nor is it good that it tells everyone who looks at their ID that they're trans. Kind of paints a target on them in certain circumstances.
I don't see how purposefully misinterpreting law to get the result you want is a good thing.
See how I can totally strawman your position, ignoring everything you're actually arguing, as well? It doesn't help anything.
You could actually address that point instead of sidestepping it, maybe.
You could actually address my point instead of sidestepping it, maybe.
I've read through five pages of your argument and at this point I have no idea what your actual point is, other than nitpicking semantics
So what? It's such a useless statement. Currently, only one side is in power of all government branches in the US. It also makes it seem like as if there's nothing you can do, even though that's not the case, because they aren't equally shit.
By just saying "both sides are shit" you are showing ignorance and you aren't adding anything of substance.
There is more than one way to interpret law, you know. There's interpretations that are more right leaning and there's interpretations that are more left leaning. The right wing interpretation is to exclude gender identity from the legal definition of "sex" and therefore disqualify them from civil rights protections. The Obama administration was more left leaning and expanded those protections. Was the Obama administration wrong? You happen to agree with the right-wing interpretation, which is why you are assuming the Trump administration is reading the law correctly. You're over focus on the "correct interpretation" over people's livelihoods is what I'm criticizing as robotic. The fact of the matter is, there's one interpretation that will lead to the government repressing people that they're supposed to be representing, and one that will make their lives a little easier. Which do you want it to be?
I've read the entire article through and through, multiple times. What have I purposefully misinterpreted? All this new definition would do is remove gender from the protections entirely, rather than define it as a separate thing.
"“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.”"
At best you're grasping at straws. I recommend you stop saying ignorant shit and read the article before you lose anymore face.
Until now you've offered zero attempt to actually offer an interpretation of the law. You've simply stated that it would hurt people to interpret it this way, therefore we shouldn't do it.
This, right here, is why, from the beginning, I tried to clarify if 'sex' and 'gender' were different. If they are actually different things, then I'm not at all sure how one could argue that protections specifically for 'sex' would also apply to gender identity. If we wanted to expand those civil protections to gender identity as a category, then we ought to specifically include that into the law.
At most, I could see an argument for 'sex' protections applying to transgender individuals who have had, or are in the process of having, sex-reassignment surgery in an attempt to literally change their sex.
See, I'm not saying, "I'm on the right, therefore I agree with the right wing admin's interpretation." I'm giving an argument that stands or falls on its own merit. I don't really care what Obama or Trump supports. I want to follow the position that makes the most sense and provides for the most amount of clarify in law.
Why exactly do you disagree with this
https://i.imgur.com/Oa7uY8Y.png
It's an inconsistent way to interpret law. It means that there is no objective standard because everyone with a different idea of what's good for people has a different, and equally legitimate, interpretation of the same law.
If I say, "I want X interpretation because I think it's what's best for people," and you say, "I want Y interpretation because I think it's what's because for people," then we have zero recourse in our discussion. Both arguments are totally legitimate. So in the end, the actual law becomes meaningless. The only thing that matters is our end goals.
There's no legal reason for sex and gender to be be considered different things IMO
I can think of a few:
1) If they are actually different, then it would be extremely unclear to treat them as equivalent in law.
2) If the different becomes legally relevant at some future time, it will be extremely difficult to deal with.
3) The country never passed a law about 'gender identity.' It passed a law specifically about 'sex.' So to make them equivalent after the fact is to, in effect, change the law without going through the set process of changing the law.
Do you actually have a solution in mind or are you intent on just picking apart everything that comes your way?
As opposed to the problems posed by saying "discrimination based on gender identity is a-ok".
If Trump were proposing the law be interpreted as "sex = chromosomes, not gender identity", but at the same time propose an addition of gender identity, I could see the argument of "this is necessary for clarity".
That's not what's going on.
Sex and gender (and sexuality for that matter) are separate things, sure, but they're intrinsically linked. Gender is a matter directly attached to sex.
Saying the law should allow discrimination based on gender "because it says sex, not gender" would be like arguing the allowance of discrimination based on ethnicity. "The law says you can't discriminate based on race, color, or nationality, and ethnicity isn't exactly the same as any of those." True, but ethnicity is intrinsically linked to race and nationality.
I've already offered a solution, I think twice now: change the law, just like generations before us did. Add 'gender' or 'gender identity' to the list of protected classes. That way everyone is clear on exactly what's happening. Once you've done that, there's no weaseling out of it by any other people who come into power later. There's zero lack of clarity on what you mean. There's a consistent basis by which to approach that topic in future law. When discrimination does occur based on gender, the person has an objective standard to appeal to. Etc.
All I'm asking is for people to do exactly what what done before us. Protected classes have continually been added on as time has progressed and society has recognized different kinds of discrimination. Do the same for gender that people did with sex.
That's not the reason we want this. It's because under that model, a trans woman's sex would legally be considered male while her gender is considered female. That's a social minefield for so many reasons and isn't fair to trans people at all.
I understand you don't want it because it's easier. You want it because you honestly and genuinely think it is a good thing.
I'm saying you want to approach the issue in this way because it's easier. Passing a law is hard. It takes time. It's easier to get your goal quickly by just reinterpreting a preexisting law to mean something it was never intended to mean. Nothing in that is an insult. It's true. Passing law is incredibly difficult.
Go back to when they were adding explicit laws against racial discrimination. Would it have been easier for them to try and shift interpretations of already existing laws to give more rights to black people? Sure, it would have, but I promise you it wouldn't have stood the test of time like the hard fought laws they got into place have. When you stand on subjective interpretations, then you fall on subjective interpretations. In fact, that's exactly what's happening in the situation that this thread is about. Since the Obama admin went the route of shifting interpretations instead of passing laws, Trump can come along and shift those interpretations right back. That's why that method can never work in the long term. It feels good in the short term, hell, it may even have real good effects in the short term, but it's not a solid foundation.
The Democrats controlled congress for all of four months, a window which was used to push the ACA. But please, tell us more about how Republicans attacking LGBT rights is actually the fault of Democrats.
Yes, I believe if a specific interpretation of the law hurts people unjustly, then we shouldn't go with that interpretation. That's called "morality."
It's fucking obvious to anybody with two functioning brain cells that when they wrote in protections for "sex" they weren't literally referring to only people with X or Y chromosomes. They were referring to men and women because that's how we conduct ourselves in human society. Trans women, for all intents and purposes, are women in the social sense that these sort of protections would apply to.
It's much, much harder to change a law than it is to re-interpret it. Reinterpretation is also not a fucking crime, it's an extremely common part of the judicial system and it's a perfectly valid way of defining law. Do you honestly think a Republican controlled Congress is going to approve legislation to expand these types of protections when they are actively trying to remove them as we speak? I don't think you're that dumb, so why don't you just say that you really don't actually care about trans rights?
And bullshit you don't support the Trump administration's position on this. You constantly try to play the "I'm just playing devils advocate," but you suspiciously always end up defending the right wing side of the argument and you claim you're just reading the law as it is. You know the republicans say the same shit right? Be fucking honest for once about what you actually believe instead of trying to claim you're some non-partisan holier than thou actor when you are clearly not.
Uncle Jim, that rule doesn't exist anymore and the guidelines Hezzy said he was going to post never got posted.
"But it's important information for medics to have for some reason, in case there's an unconscious person in need!"
"What possible situation would that information be relevant?"
Every single time this fucking topic resurfaces it's the same shit
Every time someone makes that point my eyes roll so hard you could attach a generator to them and rival the power output of the Hoover Dam
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.