Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence - Page 31 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14985634
Pants-of-dog wrote:I addressed those all, and you have not shown how the two are related.

By "addressing" you mean you said you don't want to talk about it I guess.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, these people are working with the (homophobic) Heritage Foundation, who are giving then a platform paid for by wealthy conservatives.

I wish I was censored that much; i.e. had wealthy backers paying for me to disseminate my views.

They have a problem precisely because people like you declare using organisations like the HF undermines them. Yet it's pretty obvious that this is more of a desperate move by them. There was controversy in the UK too when two feminists went to the US to speak at the HF for the same reason. The article I quoted earlier has a section about this:

It might be a sign of the end-times, or simply a function of our currently scrambled politics, but earlier this week, four feminist activists — three from a self-described radical feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front — appeared on a panel at the Heritage Foundation. Together they argued that sex was fundamentally biological, and not socially constructed, and that there is a difference between women and trans women that needs to be respected. For this, they were given a rousing round of applause by the Trump supporters, religious-right members, natural law theorists, and conservative intellectuals who comprised much of the crowd. If you think I’ve just discovered an extremely potent strain of weed and am hallucinating, check out the video of the event.

I’ve no doubt that many will see these women as anti-trans bigots, or appeasers of homophobes and transphobes, or simply deranged publicity seekers. (The moderator, Ryan Anderson, said they were speaking at Heritage because no similar liberal or leftist institution would give them space or time to make their case.) And it’s true that trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs, as they are known, are one minority that is actively not tolerated by the LGBTQ establishment, and often demonized by the gay community. It’s also true that they can be inflammatory, offensive, and obsessive. But what interests me is their underlying argument, which deserves to be thought through, regardless of our political allegiances, sexual identities, or tribal attachments. Because it’s an argument that seems to me to contain a seed of truth. Hence, I suspect, the intensity of the urge to suppress it.

The title of the Heritage panel conversation — “The Inequality of the Equality Act” — refers to the main legislative goal for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ lobbying group in the US. The proposed Equality Act — a federal nondiscrimination bill that has been introduced multiple times over the years in various formulations — would add “gender identity” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rendering that class protected by anti-discrimination laws, just as sex is. The TERF argument is that viewing “gender identity” as interchangeable with sex, and abolishing clear biological distinctions between men and women, is actually a threat to lesbian identity and even existence — because it calls into question who is actually a woman, and includes in that category human beings who have been or are biologically male, and remain attracted to women. How can lesbianism be redefined as having sex with someone who has a penis, they argue, without undermining the concept of lesbianism as a whole? “Lesbians are female homosexuals, women who love women,” one of the speakers, Julia Beck, wrote last December, “but our spaces, resources and communities are on the verge of extinction.”

If this sounds like a massive overreach, consider the fact that the proposed Equality Act — with 201 co-sponsors in the last Congress — isn’t simply a ban on discriminating against trans people in employment, housing, and public accommodations (an idea with a lot of support in the American public). It includes and rests upon a critical redefinition of what is known as “sex.” We usually think of this as simply male or female, on biological grounds (as opposed to a more cultural notion of gender). But the Equality Act would define “sex” as including “gender identity,” and defines “gender identity” thus: “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”

[...]

It's not Trump who is defining transgender people out of existence. It's actually progressives who want to define women out of existence. You couldn't make it up. :lol:
#14985642
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:By "addressing" you mean you said you don't want to talk about it I guess.


No.

This is how it went down:

I asked how the two were related.

You talked about bathroom policies and how they increase sexual assault.

I pointed out you had no evidence.

I posted evidence showing you were wrong.

You claimed, with no evidence, that the study was biased.

You then tried to change the conversation.

They have a problem precisely because people like you declare using organisations like the HF undermines them. Yet it's pretty obvious that this is more of a desperate move by them. There was controversy in the UK too when two feminists went to the US to speak at the HF for the same reason. The article I quoted earlier has a section about this:


They are allying with a group that openly advocates that lesbians should have less rights than others.

This is a clear example of transphobic lesbians cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I have no idea what point you were trying to support with that excerpt.

It's not Trump who is defining transgender people out of existence. It's actually progressives who want to define women out of existence. You couldn't make it up. :lol:


I think you just did make that up.
#14985643
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

Yes.

What Trump is proposing will just roll back the expansion of the category "sex" to include "gender identity" that was introduced by Obama via a directive.

Life site wrote:Obama announced in 2014, “I have determined that the best reading of Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination is that it encompasses discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status.”

What progressives now want is to make that expansion permanent via legislation. It's exactly the same issue that is at stake. I've explained this multiple times to you, so this will be the last time I'm making that effort.

Pants-of-dog wrote:They are allying with a group that openly advocates that lesbians should have less rights than others. This is a clear example of transphobic lesbians cutting off their nose to spite their face. I have no idea what point you were trying to support with that excerpt.

And that's precisely why talking to progressives like you is useless. You guys are partisan to the point where you are unable to consider their points and rather attack them based on who they associate with.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I think you just did make that up.

I'm just using the NYT's logic. What is true is that the proposed legislation and the directive by Obama define the female sex as including males, and these males only need to have some "female mannerism" or "female appearance" to be legally female. Shake your hips a bit while walking or put on some lipstick and viola, you are female by law. It is completely and utterly incoherent, not to mention totally removed from reality and science.
#14985645
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Yes.

What Trump is proposing will just roll back the expansion of the category "sex" to include "gender identity" that was introduced by Obama via a directive.


And that is exactly how he is stripping discrimination protection from trans people.

I see you ince again changed the conversation.

What progressives now want is to make that expansion permanent via legislation. It's exactly the same issue that is at stake. I've explained this multiple times to you, so this will be the last time I'm making that effort.


And I do not disagree that progressives are trying to make it permanent.

The only part I disagree with you on this is the part where you claim it is an affront to the rights of women.

And that's precisely why talking to progressives like you is useless. You guys are partisan to the point where you are unable to consider their points and rather attack them based on who they associate with.


This is simply an accusation about my supoosed behaviour and does not contradict the point that these lesbians are working with homophobic “allies”.

I'm just using the NYT's logic. What is true is that the proposed legislation and the directive by Obama define the female sex as including males, and these males only need to have some "female mannerism" or "female appearance" to be legally female. Shake your hips a bit while walking or put on some lipstick and viola, you are female by law. It is completely and utterly incoherent, not to mention totally removed from reality and science.


And now we seem to have arrived at yet another conversation.

Now, even if this is true, is this behaviour so egregious and awful that we should allow people to discriminate against then?
#14985650
And we are going in circles again.

For the last time, as far as I'm concerned, discrimination protection for transgender people should be based on legislation that deals with discrimination against people with illnesses. That would mean that the people involved will need a diagnosis. I see no reason why transgender people should be privileged and have more rights than other ill or disabled people.

Progressives propose something entirely different. They want to change the law to eradicate the fundamental distinction in the law between men and women and thereby open up all sex-segregated spaces, organisations, and competitions. The Dems and other left wing parties have been influenced if not outright hijacked by progressive extremists whose wish is to "deconstruct sex". But the main point here is that safety and privacy protection as well as fairness in competitions must be based on the biological reality of sex. Men already exploit the leniency of current legislation and organisations voluntarily signing up to "diversity and inclusion". I suspect that women also already react by staying away from situations where they have concerns about their safety and privacy. Again, you guys are the enablers of creeps and sexual predators, whether you like it or not.

This is simply an accusation about my supoosed behaviour and does not contradict the point that these lesbians are working with homophobic “allies”.

It's guilt by association. You are attacking them because they are desperate enough to use any platform.
#14985651
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I see no reason why transgender people should be privileged and have more rights than other ill or disabled people.
They are neither ill, nor disabled, so your whole argument goes out the window, and relies on rudimentary bigotry, instead.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Progressives propose something entirely different. They want to change the law to eradicate the fundamental distinction in the law between men and women and thereby open up all sex-segregated spaces, organisations, and competitions. The Dems and other left wing parties have been influenced if not outright hijacked by progressive extremists whose wish is to "deconstruct sex". But the main point here is that safety and privacy protection as well as fairness in competitions must be based on the biological reality of sex. Men already exploit the leniency of current legislation and organisations voluntarily signing up to "diversity and inclusion". I suspect that women also already react by staying away from situations where they have concerns about their safety and privacy. Again, you guys are the enablers of creeps and sexual predators, whether you like it or not.
These claim are ridiculous, and childishly conceived.

Protecting people against discrimination and prejudice, is not a bad thing.

Punctuating your "argument" with an Ad Hominem only shows how weak it actually is.
#14985658
Godstud wrote:They are neither ill, nor disabled, so your whole argument goes out the window, and relies on rudimentary bigotry, instead.

Why do we make treatment available to them, in most cases on public health services, if they are not ill?

Sounds like you want transgender people to not have access to treatment. How bigoted! :lol:

Godstud wrote:These claim are ridiculous, and childishly conceived. Protecting people against discrimination and prejudice, is not a bad thing. Punctuating your "argument" with an Ad Hominem only shows how weak it actually is.

Instead of feigning outrage at my alleged bigotry, you should start this conversation by addressing the points I made in my previous response to you. Otherwise, we have nothing to discuss.
#14985659
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Sounds like you want transgender people to not have access to treatment. How bigoted! :lol:
People who think they have a problem are free to have access to treatment. Your childish taunt is boring, and vacuous. Troll harder.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Instead of feigning outrage at my alleged bigotry, you should start this conversation by addressing the points I made in my previous response to you. Otherwise, we have nothing to discuss.
I don't need to address your simplistic 'beliefs' that have already been show to be exactly that. You simply repeat the same things hoping for simpletons to agree with you.
#14985661
Godstud wrote:People who think they have a problem are free to have access to it. Your childish taunt is boring. Troll harder.

Is "having a problem" the new progressive euphemism for illness?

Godstud wrote:I don't need to address your simplistic 'beliefs' that have already been show to be exactly that. You simply repeat the same things hoping for simpletons to agree with you.

I've realised a while ago that people like you aren't really prepared to defend this madness. That's where the hysteria and silencing of opposing voices comes from. It's indefensible, so I understand.
#14985663
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Is "having a problem" the new progressive euphemism for illness?
No everyone views transgenderism as an "illness".

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I've realised a while ago that people like you aren't really prepared to defend this madness.
You view it as "madness", which clearly indicates that you have a purely emotional response to it, that is not based in reality, or facts.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:That's where the hysteria and silencing of opposing voices comes from. It's indefensible, so I understand.
:lol: Yes, your emotionalism is indefensible. You understand very little beyond your own prejudices.
#14985664
Godstud wrote:No everyone views transgenderism as an "illness".

Why should anybody be interested in random people's views?

Godstud wrote:You view it as "madness", which clearly indicates that you have a purely emotional response to it, that is not based in reality, or facts.

:lol: Yes, your emotionalism is indefensible. You understand very little beyond your own prejudices.

I know there's no ready-made boilerplate text you can quote, so all you are left with is refusal to engage and crying bigotry. I can't remember the last time I got so many pathetic and cowardly responses.

Here are the points again I made in my last response to you. Surely you are able to point out where I'm wrong with my assessment of the implications? If not, you are admitting you are wrong and your posts so far have been quite ignorant.

During last year's consultation in the UK they were pushing for the following among other things:

· We find Jay Stewart, Director of Gendered Intelligence, arguing for the removal of sex-separated facilities in schools. This clearly has an impact on female schoolchildren, which should have been considered.

· We find James Morton of the Scottish Trans Alliance, arguing that traumatised female rape victims and domestic abuse victims who feel, as he says ‘uncomfortable’ with transwomen in refuges or rape crisis centres, should be ‘educated’ so that the transwomen can stay. This again discounts the interests of females.


As for the bill proposed by the Dems:
The Nature of Sex wrote:If this sounds like a massive overreach, consider the fact that the proposed Equality Act — with 201 co-sponsors in the last Congress — isn’t simply a ban on discriminating against trans people in employment, housing, and public accommodations (an idea with a lot of support in the American public). It includes and rests upon a critical redefinition of what is known as “sex.” We usually think of this as simply male or female, on biological grounds (as opposed to a more cultural notion of gender). But the Equality Act would define “sex” as including “gender identity,” and defines “gender identity” thus: “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”

What the radical feminists are arguing is that the act doesn’t only blur the distinction between men and women (thereby minimizing what they see as the oppression of patriarchy and misogyny), but that its definition of gender identity must rely on stereotypical ideas of what gender expression means. What, after all, is a “gender-related characteristic”? It implies that a tomboy who loves sports is not a girl interested in stereotypically boyish things, but possibly a boy trapped in a female body. And a boy with a penchant for Barbies and Kens is possibly a trans girl — because, according to stereotypes, he’s behaving as a girl would. So instead of enlarging our understanding of gender expression — and allowing maximal freedom and variety within both sexes — the concept of “gender identity” actually narrows it, in more traditional and even regressive ways. What does “gender-related mannerisms” mean, if not stereotypes? It’s no accident that some of the most homophobic societies, like Iran, for example, are big proponents of sex-reassignment surgery for gender-nonconforming kids and adults (the government even pays for it) while being homosexual warrants the death penalty. Assuming that a non-stereotypical kid is trans rather than gay is, in fact, dangerously close to this worldview. (Some might even see a premature decision to change a child’s body from one sex to another as a form of conversion therapy to “fix” his or her gayness. This doesn’t mean that trans people shouldn’t have the right to reaffirm their gender by changing their bodies, which relieves a huge amount of pressure for many and saves lives. But that process should entail a great deal of caution and discernment.)

The Equality Act also proposes to expand the concept of public accommodations to include “exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays”; it bars any religious exceptions invoked under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993; and it bans single-sex facilities like changing, dressing, or locker rooms, if sex is not redefined to include “gender identity.” This could put all single-sex institutions, events, or groups in legal jeopardy.

The core disagreement, it seems to me, is whether a trans woman is right to say that she has always been a woman, was born female, and is indistinguishable from and interchangeable with biological women. That’s the current claim reflected in the Equality Act. But is it true that when Caitlyn Jenner was in the 1976 Olympics men’s decathlon, she was competing as a woman, indistinguishable from any other woman? Contemporary orthodoxy insists that she was indeed competing as a woman, and erases any distinction between a trans woman and a woman. Similarly, public high-school girls track or wrestling teams would have to include female-identifying biological males — even if they keep winning all the trophies, and even if the unfairness is staring you in the face.
#14985667
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Why should anybody be interested in random people's views?
By 'not everyone', I mean that often the transgenders themselves don't believe it's an illness. Why should your view be considered by that same criteria? :knife:

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I can't remember the last time I got so many pathetic and cowardly responses.
I'm sorry your emotionalism is being met with derision. maybe your tears will lubricate your arguments so they are more palatable to the idiots who will consider them valid.

You have yet to explain how stopping discrimination is a bad thing. You have no argument for that, do you?

Your argument appears to be, let's not making things "uncomfortable", for a very few people, while discriminating against more.

Canada brought in a similar Bill regarding discrimination based on gender. The same invalid arguments were used, with simpletons often resorting to misrepresenting the Bill, in order to appeal to right-wingers.
#14985670
Godstud wrote:By 'not everyone', I mean that often the transgenders themselves don't believe it's an illness. Why should your view be considered by that same criteria? :knife:

This is not my view. If transgender people want access to treatment, such as often life long hormone therapy and surgery, paid by insurance and the public, they'll need a medical indication. "Having a problem" isn't a sufficient reason for the public to pay for this. I might have a problem with the shape of my nose, but hardly anybody would be prepared to pay for plastic nose surgery. Call it an impairment if that makes you feel better, but we are talking about something serious for which treatment ought to be available, not some lifestyle choice.

Godstud wrote:I'm sorry your emotionalism is being met with derision. maybe your tears will lubricate your arguments so they are more palatable to the idiots who will consider them valid. You have yet to explain how stopping discrimination is a bad thing. You have no argument for that, do you? Your argument appears to be, let's not making things "uncomfortable", for a very few people, while discriminating against more.

So you can't address my points. OK.

Godstud wrote:Canada brought in a similar Bill regarding discrimination based on gender. The same invalid arguments were used, with simpletons often resorting to misrepresenting the Bill, in order to appeal to right-wingers.

I suspect this law is the basis for the guy lodging complaints against 15 or so women because they wouldn't wax his genital area. Yeah, enabling creeps is what progressives do. :lol:
#14985672
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:So you can't address my points. OK.
Your points are not valid, so there is no reason to address your feelings and emotions on this subject, which is the meat of your entire argument.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I suspect this law is the basis for the guy lodging complaints against 15 or so women because they wouldn't wax his genital area. Yeah, enabling creeps is what progressives do. :lol:
:roll: This law does not address frivolous things like that, but actual threats and calls for violence against people on the basis of gender. I'd expect this level of ignorance from you, at this point, however. All your arguments are based on feelings, and not facts.
#14985678
Godstud wrote:Your points are not valid, so there is no reason to address your feelings and emotions on this subject, which is the meat of your entire argument.

I've showed the legal changes progressives are pushing for. No feelings involved, just facts. Do you agree with progressives who want to abolish sex-segregated spaces in schools? Do you support men having access to female shelters because they "identify" as women? Do you think having "female mannerisms" or "female appearance" should be enough to legally change your sex? Do you think female competitions should be open to men based on them identifying as female, or having "female mannerisms" or "female appearance"? Just a few questions you need to answer to be taken seriously, although there's more.

Godstud wrote::roll: This law does not address frivolous things like that, but actual threats and calls for violence against people on the basis of gender. I'd expect this level of ignorance from you, at this point, however. All your arguments are based on feelings, and not facts.

So you think women should be able to turn away men even if they are completely convinced they are women?

Why do men end up in women's shelters in Canada?

National Post wrote:Forced to share a room with transgender woman in Toronto shelter, sex abuse victim files human rights complaint

But when Hanna called the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, they said that she was the one engaged in discrimination for describing her new roommate as a 'man'

[...]
#14985679
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:And we are going in circles again.

For the last time, as far as I'm concerned, discrimination protection for transgender people should be based on legislation that deals with discrimination against people with illnesses. That would mean that the people involved will need a diagnosis. I see no reason why transgender people should be privileged and have more rights than other ill or disabled people.


Yes, your “subtle” attempt at calling all trans people crazy is noted.

And I asked you about specific issues of discrimination facing trans people today that are not necessarily applicable to the issues facing people with mental health issues. You ignored it.

Progressives propose something entirely different. They want to change the law to eradicate the fundamental distinction in the law between men and women and thereby open up all sex-segregated spaces, organisations, and competitions. The Dems and other left wing parties have been influenced if not outright hijacked by progressive extremists whose wish is to "deconstruct sex".


This is a strawman.

But the main point here is that safety and privacy protection as well as fairness in competitions must be based on the biological reality of sex. Men already exploit the leniency of current legislation and organisations voluntarily signing up to "diversity and inclusion". I suspect that women also already react by staying away from situations where they have concerns about their safety and privacy. Again, you guys are the enablers of creeps and sexual predators, whether you like it or not.


You seem to almost make an argument here, when you start discussing how safety and privact needs should be based on bioogical sex.

Then you veer off into accusations and suspicions.

It's guilt by association. You are attacking them because they are desperate enough to use any platform.


No, I am not attacking them.

I am pointing out that they are shooting themselves in the foot in their efforts to hate trans people.

If you have an argument or point to make about this, please explain why you brought this up. Do these TERFs have an actual point?
#14985681
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I've showed the legal changes progressives are pushing for. No feelings involved, just facts. Do you agree with progressives who want to abolish sex-segregated spaces in schools? Do you support men having access to female shelters because they "identify" as women? Do you think having "female mannerisms" or "female appearance" should be enough to legally change your sex? Do you think female competitions should be open to men based on them identifying as female, or having "female mannerisms" or "female appearance"? Just a few questions you need to answer to be taken seriously, although there's more.
I do not care if I am "taken seriously" by someone so emotional about this topic. Your arguments are superficial, at best, and many progressives and indeed right-wingnuts push for legislation that is absurd.

People don't change their gender or sex on simplistic things. That assertion is unrealistic, at best.

You take the exceptions and imply it's the rule. :knife:
#14985684
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, your “subtle” attempt at calling all trans people crazy is noted.

Please. I don't even believe in the distinction between mental and other illnesses. As I told Godstud, call it impairment if that's less offensive to you.

Also a bit rich coming from someone who called me "psychologically abnormal". More fake outrage.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And I asked you about specific issues of discrimination facing trans people today that are not necessarily applicable to the issues facing people with mental health issues. You ignored it.

They should all be addressed within that legislation. Military service can certainly be dealt with in that way. If changes are required they should be made to that legislation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is a strawman.

It's a pertinent fact, actually.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem to almost make an argument here, when you start discussing how safety and privact needs should be based on bioogical sex. Then you veer off into accusations and suspicions.

I've made this argument in my very first response to you if I remember correctly. Yet here we are with you just stringing us along with nothing of substance.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, I am not attacking them. I am pointing out that they are shooting themselves in the foot in their efforts to hate trans people. If you have an argument or point to make about this, please explain why you brought this up. Do these TERFs have an actual point?

It shouldn't matter who they associate with. You wouldn't have to resort to underhanded attacks if you could address their points.


----------------------------------

Godstud wrote: I do not care if I am "taken seriously" by someone so emotional about this topic. Your arguments are superficial, at best, and many progressives and indeed right-wingnuts push for legislation that is absurd. People don't change their gender or sex on simplistic things. That assertion is unrealistic, at best. You take the exceptions and imply it's the rule. :knife:

You really have nothing at all in response, do you? :lol:

I'll wait for you to muster the courage to answer my questions, but I'm not holding my breath.
Last edited by Kaiserschmarrn on 04 Feb 2019 03:13, edited 1 time in total.
#14985686
I answered your childish questions. I didn't need to address them individually, as they were extremely simple and poorly made. If you are not satisfied with the responses, then that's only due to your lack of reasoning and understanding.
  • 1
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

@annatar1914 do not despair. Again, el amor pu[…]

I think we really have to ask ourselves what t[…]