Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence - Page 2 - 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

#14955672
You can't ''define out of existence'' what doesn't really exist to begin with, outside the minds of mentally ill persons. This is just a step back towards sanity and an opportunity for alleged ''Leftists'' to stop with the stupid diversions of false ''identity politics'' and get with their real business of standing up for the common working people of the world instead of the freaks, lunatics, and the lazy wastrels who want free shit for life without work...
#14955679
Ho hum. Another person accusing me of something I did not say. If you read carefully, all my post did was laugh at the absurd belief Obama’s changes should have more validity than Trunp’s.


I look at this a little differently. As you know One Degree, we share the belief that states should have the maximum authority possible to govern themselves based upon local beliefs. I would further power down to cities and counties to the extent possible. So having said that:

The question of Transgender "rights" is not the correct way to look at this. Obama did not give transgendered people a single right that any other citizen does not have. What he did do is prohibit the federal government from taking away any rights from citizens based upon their being transgendered. This is key. So the difference is that Trump wants to allow discrimination and Obama sought to prevent it. This is not even in debate.

So ask yourself. Why would Trump want to take away, for example, a transgendered persons right to certain employment opportunities with the federal government? The justification has to be one of two things. Either he believes that there are psychiatric reasons for doing it or he is throwing a bone to Christians who think being transgendered is sinful.

Clearly the Courts have ruled, in the case of same sex marriages, that ones sexual orientation is subject to the equal protection clause. Obama simply ordered that the same principle apply to transgendered people. It is fairly clear that the courts are going this way WRT trans people. Indeed at least four federal courts have ruled on it already, blocking Trumps ban on transgendered people in the military.

So you see, One Degree, this has nothing to do with Trump's orders equaling Obama's. It has to do with the equal protection clause of the constitution. In this case one of them was on the side of the constitution (Obama) and the other acting on presidential preference or fiat (Trump). There is irony here because Obama was condemned for legislating by proclamation and then supported by the courts. Trump tried it several times and the courts have thwarted him. Why?

The original article was poorly written in another aspect. It identified what was done as a simple matter of federal rule making. It is not. Federal rules must be constitutional. Trump as sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution. He has every reason to believe that all or some of the effects of this order will be struck down as unconstitutional.

So if Trump really believes that transgendered people should be widely discriminated against, then he has a very good remedy. He could propose a constitutional amendment excluding transgendered people from protection under the equal protection clause of the constitution. It would, of course, fail but that is the method that he should use.

Here is what Justice Kennedy said in the case of same sex marriage:

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.


But there is a more powerful court example. It was the Loving v Virginia Decision which struck down bans on interracial marriages.

It would be tempting to point to minor differences in these two cases but now only because we have seen the results of affirming individual rights. At one time interracial marriage opponents imagined a parade of horribles should we allow blacks and whites to marry. The SCOTUS struck down state laws prohibiting it in 1967 (you and I remember clearly when it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry in some states) and no such disaster occurred. Allowing gays in the military was once considered to horrible to imagine but once we tried it nothing horrible happened. I opposed it at one time and now realize that I was wrong in a great many of my assumptions and beliefs.

Let me be clear. I am deeply suspicious of the decision to have gender reassignment surgery/medical intervention , particularly in young people. I believe we need to do a lot more thinking before we mainstream gender dysphoria. That said. Those who have already transitioned present themselves fait accompli. At that point their decision and action seems frankly none of the governments business.

For me to be consistent with my conservative views I must believe the most sacred of our founding principles is that of the supremacy of individual rights as established in the constitution. These rights are imagined not to always be specific but rather general. In other words, the government must have a compelling reason to take a right from one citizen that is enjoyed by other citizens.

So at the end of the day, Trumps actions are probably unconstitutional. They are certainly politically based and mostly religiously motivated. Yes elections have consequences. But those consequences do not extend denying the constitutional rights of the losers.
#14955689
As far as I can see, they are just correcting the deliberate misuse of the term sex. Of course the NYT doesn't help much in clarifying anything, as it seems to be using the terms gender and sex interchangeably, e.g.:
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.

I also had to chuckle at the idea that using genetic testing to determine sex if in doubt is "extreme". We are apparently at a point where even defining sex biologically is an outrage.

The only extremists, as far as I can see, are the gender activists and their enablers who persecute even the slightest transgression. If they get their way you may well be investigated for stating the basic truth that women have no penises, or be prevented by law from calling this guy a man:

Of course that's nothing compared to the blackmail directed at parents who are confronted with, say, a teenage daughter who has decided from one day to the other that she is now male, or that in the UK even MPs are apparently afraid to speak their mind on transgender issues.

It's truly bizarre how quickly this issue - which is essentially a health problem - has spiraled out of control, thereby also becoming a teenage subculture and purportedly an urgent human rights problem. It's supremely ironic and sad at the same time that, under the guise of equality and on the back of genuinely ill people, a small minority is waging a cultural battle with the result that, overwhelmingly, men get access to anything and everything that societies have until now by consensus reserved for females and won't even stop if they put real women at risk. The sooner they are stopped, the better.
#14955694
@Kaiserschmarrn

Oh please. This is just the usual right-wing angst that everybody will turn trans once you allow transgenders to officially change their gender. A few decades ago you would have argued that homosexuality should remain illegal because otherwise the youth will be corrupted and turn gay. :lol:

It's certainly debatable what kind of evidence of sex change should be required, but categorically denying the right to anyone is right-wing idiocy at its best.

P.S. Your twitter anecdotes are utterly worthless.
#14955708
@Drlee gave a very well thought out argument. @Kaiserschmarrn stated many of my concerns.
The problem with Drlee’s argument is it conflates the current view of transgender with a view conservatives would accept so it can be conflated with same sex marriage and interracial marriage.
No one wants to deny people rights who were born into bodies that leaves their sexual identity in doubt.
The objection is to this being used to say anyone can just decide to change their gender even without bothering to change it physically. This is an abomination that can only be controlled by including those who honestly need the protection.
So, the battle is not about denying rights to those who deserve them. It is about not allowing people to assume rights they have no need to have. Unfortunately, no one is addressing one without the other. They rely upon conflation to disguise the real issue.
#14955719
Rugoz wrote:@Kaiserschmarrn
Oh please. This is just the usual right-wing angst

I'm taking right-wing angst to mean the rational and science-based approach and I would be very surprised if you actually knew what you are talking about here.

Rugoz wrote:that everybody will turn trans once you allow transgenders to officially change their gender.

It's certainly debatable what kind of evidence of sex change should be required, but categorically denying the right to anyone is right-wing idiocy at its best.

Sex and gender are not equivalent, Rugoz. If you must style yourself as a defender of rights, at least make sure you know which ones you mean.

Rugoz wrote:P.S. Your twitter anecdotes are utterly worthless.

I've only referred to facts, except for anecdotes of parents who are bullied into "affirmation" when their (usually) female teenage kids suddenly tell them that they are boys, because anything else, so they are told, is cruel and their daughter may well kill herself. This is called rapid onset gender dysporia and you can be forgiven if you've never heard of it, as it's actually quite a recent phenomenon.

Since you don't like Twitter, I'll leave you with a newspaper article:
standard.co.uk wrote:
'Gender fluid' Credit Suisse director named on FT list of Top 100 Women in Business

A "gender fluid" senior director at Credit Suisse has been awarded a place on a list of the Top 100 Women in Business.

Image

Don't you know, to be a woman you just have to put on a blonde wig and a pink dress. That's not sexist at all, it's heroic.

Rugoz wrote:The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth.

They are defining sex as biological with the quite obvious criterion being genitalia at birth and if in doubt genetic testing (which is extreme according to the NYT).
#14955721
[quote="Rugoz"]:eh:

The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth.[/quote

Yes, that is how it was addressed before transgender became an issue. That does not mean exceptions were not allowed. Surgeries were performed on those who were not clearly defined. This is the only issue that has merit. Using this issue to excuse the actions of mentally unstable people is the issue today.
Again, liberal issues are not being overturned because conservatives are backward Bible thumpers, but because liberals insist upon expanding their issues to absurd lengths. You are your own worst enemy.
#14955728
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I'm taking right-wing angst to mean the rational and science-based approach and I would be very surprised if you actually knew what you are talking about here.


There's a science-based approach that proves that people will be turning trans when transgenders are allowed to change their official gender? Interesting... :roll:

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Sex and gender are not equivalent, Rugoz. If you must style yourself as a defender of rights, at least make sure you know which ones you mean.


You can fight terminology wars with somebody else. The one that's official, like in your passport.

One Degree wrote:Using this issue to excuse the actions of mentally unstable people is the issue today.
Again, liberal issues are not being overturned because conservatives are backward Bible thumpers, but because liberals insist upon expanding their issues to absurd lengths. You are your own worst enemy.


Whether it's a mental health issue or not is irrelevant to me, that definition is constantly changing anyway. As long as these people are able to function in society and old enough, they're free to do with their bodies whatever they want. If professionals approve, which they often do, even better.

As for Bible thumpers. Why is this not even an issue where I live? I don't even remember a debate. No doubt because my country isn't full of retarded Bible thumpers.
#14955731
@Rugoz said...

As for Bible thumpers. Why is this not even an issue where I live? I don't even remember a debate. No doubt because my country isn't full of retarded Bible thumpers.


I have the advantage of having observed the changes over decades. Societal changes are a slow and gradual process that makes each new step appear rational whether it is or not. This is due to changes being incorporated throughout our institutions resulting in propaganda or biased views if you prefer accepted as fact.
It is actually the ‘bible thumpers’ or other ‘cultish groups’ that are a safety valve on society’s delusions. The extremists are resistant to ‘opinion being changed to fact by institutionalizing it’. So yes, bible thumpers are a reason we are more resistant, but that is a good thing and does not actually condone their total view.
#14955733
Rugoz wrote:There's a science-based approach that proves that people will be turning trans when transgenders are allowed to change their official gender? Interesting... :roll:

If you have to invent something I have never stated and argue against it I'd call that a retreat.

Rugoz wrote:You can fight terminology wars with somebody else. The one that's official, like in your passport.

How is this is a "terminology war"? Will you accept it when it comes from the NHS?

Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity. It's sometimes known as gender incongruence.

Biological sex is assigned at birth, depending on the appearance of the genitals. Gender identity is the gender that a person "identifies" with or feels themselves to be.


Now there is certainly increasingly a push to muddy the waters and conflate the two and maybe you are in favour of that, but I'd hope we are still living in a somewhat rational society where sex is a biological reality grounded in science.
#14955740
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:If you have to invent something I have never stated and argue against it I'd call that a retreat.


What? You responded with "science-based approach" to my post which clearly stated that.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:How is this is a "terminology war"? Will you accept it when it comes from the NHS?


Whatever's official.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Now there is certainly increasingly a push to muddy the waters and conflate the two and maybe you are in favour of that, but I'd hope we are still living in a somewhat rational society where sex is a biological reality grounded in science.


Biological reality only matters to the extent laws are different for men/women for biological reasons. The only thing that comes to my mind right now is military service. The question would then be how surgical or hormone treatment changes the biology relevant to those laws. But even if transgenders were still fit to serve as men (they won't serve as men since they're now officially women), I would rank the individual interest of transgenders higher in this case.
#14955756
Rugoz wrote:What? You responded with "science-based approach" to my post which clearly stated that.

I responded to a part of your post which didn't state that.

Rugoz wrote:Whatever's official.

Yet here you are bitching about the US govt planning to make a science-based definition "official ". Why is that?

Rugoz wrote:Biological reality only matters to the extent laws are different for men/women for biological reasons. The only thing that comes to my mind right now is military service. The question would then be how surgical or hormone treatment changes the biology relevant to those laws. But even if transgenders were still fit to serve as men (they won't serve as men since they're now officially women), I would rank the individual interest of transgenders higher in this case.

This is amazingly stupid. Sorry to break it to you, but you will never be able to bear children, and even if the law explicitly stated that you can, it won't become a reality. Of course it's not entirely out of the question that in the near future we will be forced to pretend with a straight face that Rugoz is indeed pregnant if he chooses to sport a big belly. You could even be pregnant just for a few days a week!
#14955768
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I responded to a part of your post which didn't state that.


It's literally one sentence whose parts don't work by themselves.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Yet here you are bitching about the US govt planning to make a science-based definition "official ". Why is that?


:eh:

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:This is amazingly stupid. Sorry to break it to you, but you will never be able to bear children, and even if the law explicitly stated that you can, it won't become a reality. Of course it's not entirely out of the question that in the near future we will be forced to pretend with a straight face that Rugoz is indeed pregnant if he chooses to sport a big belly. You could even be pregnant just for a few days a week!



Jeez, how is that even relevant. Do laws not apply to infertile women? Come up with an argument already.
#14955781
Please note that the Trump administration is using a “science based” (i.e biological) defintion of sex as the defintion for gender. So what they are doing is redefining gender in such a way that ignores sciences outside of biology, and in such a way as to stop trans people from having the same rights as everyone else.
#14955790
Kaiserschmarm is right. Sex is recognized at birth. In addition to genitalia there are other differences and these are profound. That is the proverbial stake in the ground and can't be moved.

Yes, that is how it was addressed before transgender became an issue. That does not mean exceptions were not allowed. Surgeries were performed on those who were not clearly defined. This is the only issue that has merit. Using this issue to excuse the actions of mentally unstable people is the issue today.
Again, liberal issues are not being overturned because conservatives are backward Bible thumpers, but because liberals insist upon expanding their issues to absurd lengths. You are your own worst enemy.


Several points and I will deal with this one up front:

Surgeries were performed on those who were not clearly defined. This is the only issue that has merit.


This is medically sort of untrue but I will let it pass. Suffice it to say that Gender Dysphoria is a condition that has merit. The genuine - long-standing cases are deeply unhappy people, many of whom find happiness with gender reassignment. Some have surgery, some have hormone treatment and some neither. To dismiss this condition as "invalid" is not supportable by the facts.

Using this issue to excuse the actions of mentally unstable people is the issue today.


Why do you think that transsexuals are "mentally unstable". There is no scientific reason to think this. Gender Dysphoria is not a psychotic state. Though some people experiencing GID (gender identity dyaphoria) have mental illnesses affecting behavior and function, not all or even most do.

I would be very interested in hearing from you One Degree, what the parade of horribles consist of if we accept transsexuals. Please tell me why you think these things are so profound that they warrant denying an individual equal protection under the law.

I will save you some space. I would oppose any rules that make gender identity overly fluid. This is to prevent chicanery on the part of unscrupulous people. I would favor rules that require a person changing their gender identity to go to court to do it. We do it with simple name changes so I see no reason we should not do it with something as dramatic as gender change.

Please note that the Trump administration is using a “science based” (i.e biological) defintion of sex as the defintion for gender. So what they are doing is redefining gender in such a way that ignores sciences outside of biology, and in such a way as to stop trans people from having the same rights as everyone else.


This is true.
#14955801
@Drlee
I have already agreed there are a very few people who should have this protection. Our laws are intended to reduce chaos. That is their prime purpose. This is why the some individuals rights must be ignored for the greater good. The current state of mental evaluation is not something I trust to determine if a person is in the wrong body. Psychology obviously is heavily influenced by current trends. Therefore I believe emotional reasons should not be allowed as a reason to change gender even knowing this is totally unfair to a few.
I believe surgical procedures should be heavily scrutinized. To me, this is equivalent to assisted suicide. If our society is not ready to allow individuals to make the latter choice on their own, we should not allow them to decide to change their gender on their own.
#14955880
@Pants-of-dog

Do you think trans people are freaks, lunatics, and wastrels?


I think people who believe they are another gender, in the absence of genetic or biological facts, are mentally ill. They may not have a total break from reality, their illness being better than some but worse than others, but they are indeed not well.

The Democratic party is increasingly becoming home to freaks, lunatics, and wastrels. A party where malcontents of every stripe, including the abnormal and the disenchanted with normal life, are impressing their views on a Democratic party which is increasingly cut off from understanding of working class people and their reality.

I think malcontents are not automatically revolutionary material or have a higher consciousness or insight about the important things, the serious things, in life, just because they are unhappy.

Do you think that trans people are not working class?


Most common working people worldwide don't have the luxury of a sexual paraphilia, an obsessive focus, and it indeed is a diversionary preoccupation of well to do people in the First World for the most part. I say ''diversionary'', because all this ''identity politics'' BS does nothing to advance the cause of laborers, the workers and farmers and peasantry worldwide. In fact, I find it to be rather suspicious that these ideas proliferated and gained traction especially after the Soviet Union began to decline...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 33
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]