Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence - Page 29 - 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

#14978687
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you do have a gender identity, but you never noticed it or gave it much importance becuase it aligns with your biological sex and is accoeted by society.

Not any more than I have an age identity because someone's subjective age might be younger or older than their objective age, or a species identity because somebody's subjective species might be non-human, or an identity with respect to any other matter on which some people's subjective beliefs or feelings differ. These examples hopefully illustrate that "aligned with your sex" just means being in tune with reality.

I also wanted to mention that if you want to discuss anything that came up in the Gorky Park thread we can probably do that here.

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

As an aside to the quoted text in my last post, sex is also generally not assigned but observed. It's only assigned where there exists an ambiguity which can happen with sexual development disorders and is extremely rare.
#14978760
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Not any more than I have an age identity because someone's subjective age might be younger or older than their objective age, or a species identity because somebody's subjective species might be non-human, or an identity with respect to any other matter on which some people's subjective beliefs or feelings differ. These examples hopefully illustrate that "aligned with your sex" just means being in tune with reality.


These other examples do not change the fact that gender identity is a thing, nor does it change the fact that you have one, not does it change the fact that it is aligned with your biological sex.

All it does is illustrate that you think the concept is ridiculous, which is your right, but it does not change facts.

As an aside to the quoted text in my last post, sex is also generally not assigned but observed. It's only assigned where there exists an ambiguity which can happen with sexual development disorders and is extremely rare.


Sure.

Do you think Trump is right to take away protection from discrimination for trans people in this manner?
#14978819
Pants-of-dog wrote:These other examples do not change the fact that gender identity is a thing, nor does it change the fact that you have one, not does it change the fact that it is aligned with your biological sex.

All it does is illustrate that you think the concept is ridiculous, which is your right, but it does not change facts.

The examples show that the concept is useless and superfluous for healthy people, as there's nothing to align in the first place. Feel free to prove that I have an "inner sense" or "intrinsic sense" of what my sex is and explain why there's no such sense for any of my other physical attributes.

The concept might be useful for some people with gender dysporia, but it also isn't sufficient to explain the presentation of all of them. For example, there are diagnosed men who want to be female, but they don't actually believe they are female (and the same is true for women).

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you think Trump is right to take away protection from discrimination for trans people in this manner?

As far as I can tell from the muddled NYT article in the OP, I probably agree with the Trump admin. Sex is biologically determined and I think that it ought to remain the protected category. I'm certainly strongly against it being used by people of the opposite sex to gain access to same-sex facilities.
#14978868
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:The examples show that the concept is useless and superfluous for healthy people, as there's nothing to align in the first place. Feel free to prove that I have an "inner sense" or "intrinsic sense" of what my sex is and explain why there's no such sense for any of my other physical attributes.

The concept might be useful for some people with gender dysporia, but it also isn't sufficient to explain the presentation of all of them. For example, there are diagnosed men who want to be female, but they don't actually believe they are female (and the same is true for women).


Proving something about you specifically seems an overly onerous burden of proof.

Instead, I will simply point out that I have one, and in my discussions with trans people, and in discussions between trans people and medical and other professionals, gender identity has become a useful term to describe the personal sense of one’s own gender.

And it is possible that there is also personal sense of others of one’s other attributes. Having a gender identity is independent of whether or not you have an age identity or species identity.

As far as I can tell from the muddled NYT article in the OP, I probably agree with the Trump admin. Sex is biologically determined and I think that it ought to remain the protected category. I'm certainly strongly against it being used by people of the opposite sex to gain access to same-sex facilities.


Yes, sex is biologically determined, but that is not what gender is.

And sex will remain a protected catgeory even if gender identity also becomes a protected category.

Also, the issue of bathrooms seems insignificant, so I would need you to clarify why the bathroom issue is so important that we would strip trans people of discrimination protection.
#14978874
People believe they are Abraham Lincoln too, but we don’t take their word for it. A psychologist agreeing you are a different gender than your biological sex should rationally give the same consideration to all other delusions. If you can not physically prove it then all you have is the word of a person that you don’t know if they are delusional.
#14978884
People believe they are Abraham Lincoln too, but we don’t take their word for it. A psychologist agreeing you are a different gender than your biological sex should rationally give the same consideration to all other delusions. If you can not physically prove it then all you have is the word of a person that you don’t know if they are delusional.


Welcome to Psychology 101.

People who have Gender Identity Dysphoria are not "delusional". People with GID do not believe they are the opposite sex. They know full well what their sex is and they find it uncomfortable.



So. As usual. You don't know what you are talking about.
#14978886
Drlee wrote:Welcome to Psychology 101.

People who have Gender Identity Dysphoria are not "delusional". People with GID do not believe they are the opposite sex. They know full well what their sex is and they find it uncomfortable.



So. As usual. You don't know what you are talking about.


And this can be distinguished from other delusions and phobias how?
#14978887
Why don't you try just looking up the psychological definition of delusional. Then look up the definition of phobias. Do not look at the dictionary. Look at the DSM 5 for example. Do it soon. You are looking like a fool.
#14978888
Drlee wrote:Why don't you try just looking up the psychological definition of delusional. Then look up the definition of phobias. Do not look at the dictionary. Look at the DSM 5 for example. Do it soon. You are looking like a fool.


You were acting informed on the subject, so it seemed time effective to ask you rather than doing research. Since you don’t know, then I guess I will look elsewhere if I ever feel the need to do so.
#14978891
Pants-of-dog wrote:Proving something about you specifically seems an overly onerous burden of proof.

Instead, I will simply point out that I have one, and in my discussions with trans people, and in discussions between trans people and medical and other professionals, gender identity has become a useful term to describe the personal sense of one’s own gender.

Well, you told me in your last two posts that I do have a gender identity. I don't think asking you to back that up is an onerous burden.

People should be able to talk about this any way they want and it's probably more helpful and instructive to let them express their feelings and experience as freely as possible rather than confining them to a particular concept such as your gender identity is misaligned with your sex. But that's beside the point, as we are not talking about whether gender identity is a useful term for some people. You and the expert witness I quoted tell others that they do have a gender identity and make general statements of fact.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And it is possible that there is also personal sense of others of one’s other attributes. Having a gender identity is independent of whether or not you have an age identity or species identity.

Do you have an age identity, a species identity or a hair colour identity?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, sex is biologically determined, but that is not what gender is.

That seems to be exactly what the Trump admin is saying. My understanding is that they are reversing the expansion of "sex" to include gender that happened under Obama. From the article:

Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, declined to answer detailed questions about the memo or his role in interagency discussions about how to revise the definition of sex under Title IX.

But officials at the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that their push to limit the definition of sex for the purpose of federal civil rights laws resulted from their own reading of the laws and from a court decision.

Mr. Severino, while serving as the head of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity, which he called “radical gender ideology.”


The expert witness I quoted earlier disagrees with you by the way.
From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity.

It seems if I have no gender identity I have no sex "from a medical perspective". At least I can now no longer get cervical cancer. Lucky me.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And sex will remain a protected catgeory even if gender identity also becomes a protected category.

Also, the issue of bathrooms seems insignificant, so I would need you to clarify why the bathroom issue is so important that we would strip trans people of discrimination protection.

The needs for safety and privacy of girls and women cannot be met if men can easily change their legal sex and thereby gain the right to enter same-sex facilities and be treated as women in all situations. It is either proposed or already the law in many countries that all that is required is a statutory declaration to change legal sex. So there must be an acknowledgment in the law that where necessary the protected category is biological sex and that girls and women can refuse to share facilities or provide services to men.
#14979307
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Well, you told me in your last two posts that I do have a gender identity. I don't think asking you to back that up is an onerous burden.

People should be able to talk about this any way they want and it's probably more helpful and instructive to let them express their feelings and experience as freely as possible rather than confining them to a particular concept such as your gender identity is misaligned with your sex. But that's beside the point, as we are not talking about whether gender identity is a useful term for some people. You and the expert witness I quoted tell others that they do have a gender identity and make general statements of fact.


And you do have a gender identity. You simply seem to be pretending that you do not in order to score debate points.

Do you disagree with the claim that people, in general, have gender identities? Because that is the claim that I am making, and it seems like a statement of fact.

Do you have an age identity, a species identity or a hair colour identity?


As I already pointed out, the existence, or lack of, these identities does not change the fact gender identity is a thing.

That seems to be exactly what the Trump admin is saying. My understanding is that they are reversing the expansion of "sex" to include gender that happened under Obama. From the article:


Yes, Trump is using the wrong definition of gender. And he is doing this specifically to drum up supoort and remove discrimination protections from trans people.

Please note that his definition is considered to be wrong by science.

The expert witness I quoted earlier disagrees with you by the way.

It seems if I have no gender identity I have no sex "from a medical perspective". At least I can now no longer get cervical cancer. Lucky me.


If you think that is what the expert is saying, you have misread.

This is probably because you ignored almost all of what the expert said:

    HOW DO EXPERTS ASSIGN OR “DETERMINE” SEX?
    23. From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity.
    24. For many people, gender identity aligns with the sex assigned to the individual at birth, so assigning sex based on sex-characteristics such as external genitalia is a proxy for assigning sex based on one’s gender identity.
    25. For transgender people and people with differences or disorders of sex development, however, there is not complete alignment among sex-related characteristics. Medicine and science require that where a more careful consideration of sex assignment is needed that it be based on gender identity rather than other sex characteristics.
    26. In the past, when mental health and medical practitioners identified a disconnect between a person’s gender identity and assigned sex at birth, treatment often focused on efforts to bring the individual’s gender identity into alignment with the assigned sex. These practices were unsuccessful and incredibly harmful. Deep depression, psychosis, and suicide frequently resulted.
    27. Medical science has since recognized that appropriate treatment for individuals who are transgender must focus on alleviating distress through supporting outward expressions of the person’s gender identity and bringing the body into alignment with that identity to the extent deemed medically appropriate based on assessments between individual patients and their medical and mental health providers. These treatments have been very successful.
    28. In infants with sex-characteristics associated with both males and females, if an assignment is made that later conflicts with gender identity, then the only appropriate medical course is to re-assign or re-classify the individual’s sex to align with gender identity.
    29. It is harmful to make sex assignments based on characteristics other than gender identity. For example, in cases where surgery was done prior to the ability of the child to understand and express their gender identity, there has been significant distress in these individuals who then have to endure further surgeries to reverse the earlier treatments. It has become standard practice to wait until the gender identity is clear to make permanent surgical changes in these patients unless the changes are required to maintain the life or health of the child.
    30. A person’s gender identity (regardless of whether that identity matches other sex-related characteristics) is fixed, cannot be changed by others, and is not undermined or altered by the existence of other sex-related characteristics that do not align with it.
    31. Today, medical and mental health care providers who specialize in the treatment of these individuals with gender dysphoria recognize that being transgender is a normal developmental variation.
    32. For individuals with gender dysphoria and individuals with differences of sex development, gender identity is the only medically supported determinant of sex when sex assignment as male or female is necessary. It would be unethical and extremely harmful to, for example, force a man with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, discussed below, to be classified as a woman simply because he was classified as female at birth. Likewise it would be unethical and extremely harmful to force a man who has gender dysphoria to be classified as female simply because he was assigned female at birth.
    33. The cost of not assigning sex based on gender identity is dire. It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female. Gender identity does and should control when there is a need to classify an individual as a particular sex.
    34. With the exception of some serious childhood cancers, gender dysphoria is the most fatal condition that I treat because of the harms that flow from not properly recognizing gender identity. Attempted suicide rates in the transgender community are over 40%, which is a risk of death that far exceeds most other medical conditions. The only treatment to avoid this serious harm is to recognize the gender identity of patients with gender dysphoria and differences of sex development.

The expert then goes on to discuss biological sex. So, if you believe that the expert was saying that your biological sex is determined only by your gender identity, you did not read correctly.

The needs for safety and privacy of girls and women cannot be met if men can easily change their legal sex and thereby gain the right to enter same-sex facilities and be treated as women in all situations. It is either proposed or already the law in many countries that all that is required is a statutory declaration to change legal sex. So there must be an acknowledgment in the law that where necessary the protected category is biological sex and that girls and women can refuse to share facilities or provide services to men.


Please provide evidence that women and girls are being assaulted by trans people in bathrooms.

Then show that this rate of violence is higher than the rate of attacks targeting trans people who are forced to share facilities with the people attacking them.

And also please explain how removing discrimination protection helps anyone. This last one is the most important bit. So, if you are going to address only one thing, please address this last demand. Thnaks.
#14979364
Pants-of-dog wrote:And you do have a gender identity. You simply seem to be pretending that you do not in order to score debate points. Do you disagree with the claim that people, in general, have gender identities? Because that is the claim that I am making, and it seems like a statement of fact.

As I already pointed out, the existence, or lack of, these identities does not change the fact gender identity is a thing.

This is a new level of progressive hubris. :lol:

Yeah, I obviously disagree that everyone has a gender identity, unless we define it in such a way that it applies to every physical feature of a person, in which case it is no longer a useful or meaningful concept. I've already explained that twice I believe.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, Trump is using the wrong definition of gender. And he is doing this specifically to drum up supoort and remove discrimination protections from trans people. Please note that his definition is considered to be wrong by science.

Again, this is about the definition of sex as far as I can tell.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you think that is what the expert is saying, you have misread.

My comment was obviously facetious, but I'm not misreading her dishonest mental gymnastics and fabrications. A belief or conviction does not in any way determine a biological or physical characteristic for medical purposes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence that women and girls are being assaulted by trans people in bathrooms. Then show that this rate of violence is higher than the rate of attacks targeting trans people who are forced to share facilities with the people attacking them.

It's up to those who want to open up female-only and girl-only facilities (not only bathrooms) to men to show that it wouldn't increase the risk of harassment and assault to women, if changing sex legally becomes easy and may only involve a statutory declaration or even without any legal sex change at all. It's also not only harassment and assault, but there's also the question whether women would be able to provide female-only services (as in Canada where a man has lodged human rights complaints against 15 women because they didn't want to wax his groin area). Please explain how you guys are not empowering and enabling creeps, predators and opportunists, whether transgender or not.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And also please explain how removing discrimination protection helps anyone. This last one is the most important bit. So, if you are going to address only one thing, please address this last demand. Thnaks.

Discrimination protection should not extend to automatic access to same sex facilities or involve situations where women and girls can reasonably expect that their safety and privacy will be protected. It's quite extraordinary that this has to be explained and negotiated today.

Transgender people should have the same discrimination protection as other people with a health condition.
#14979400
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:This is a new level of progressive hubris. :lol:

Yeah, I obviously disagree that everyone has a gender identity, unless we define it in such a way that it applies to every physical feature of a person, in which case it is no longer a useful or meaningful concept. I've already explained that twice I believe.


Why would we gave to change the definition if gehder identity to include “every physical feature of a person”? That makes no sense.

Again, this is about the definition of sex as far as I can tell.


No, it is about the definition of gender. Trump tried to change the defintion of gender to mean “sex” in irder to make it legal to, for example, deny housing to trans people.

My comment was obviously facetious, but I'm not misreading her dishonest mental gymnastics and fabrications. A belief or conviction does not in any way determine a biological or physical characteristic for medical purposes.


If your only criticism is that the section you quoted is vague and can be misinterpreted (if the context is ignored), then sure.

It does not change the fact that determining the sex of a trans person is not as cut and dry as it is for cis people.

It's up to those who want to open up female-only and girl-only facilities (not only bathrooms) to men to show that it wouldn't increase the risk of harassment and assault to women, if changing sex legally becomes easy and may only involve a statutory declaration or even without any legal sex change at all. It's also not only harassment and assault, but there's also the question whether women would be able to provide female-only services (as in Canada where a man has lodged human rights complaints against 15 women because they didn't want to wax his groin area). Please explain how you guys are not empowering and enabling creeps, predators and opportunists, whether transgender or not.


Please do not try to switch the burden of proof.

In general, people are allowed to access those rights that others are allowed to access.

Since you and I are allowed to use the bathroom that aligns with our gender identity, trans people should also have this right.

This right can be waived or taken away if it can be shown that there is a negative impact if the rights are shared equally. For example, violent offenders do not have the same freedoms we do (they are in prison) because letting then walk the streets endangers us all.

So, it is up to the people who wish to deny equality and allow discrimination (i.e. Trump and his supporters) who must explain why they can take away the rights of others.

But if you insist:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-0335-z

    Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations: a Review of Evidence Regarding Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Changing Rooms

    Abstract
    Legislation, regulations, litigation, and ballot propositions affecting public restroom access for transgender people increased drastically in the last three years. Opponents of gender identity inclusive public accommodations nondiscrimination laws often cite fear of safety and privacy violations in public restrooms if such laws are passed, while proponents argue that such laws are needed to protect transgender people and concerns regarding safety and privacy violations are unfounded. No empirical evidence has been gathered to test such laws’ effects. This study presents findings from matched pairs analyses of localities in Massachusetts with and without gender identity inclusive public accommodation nondiscrimination ordinances. Data come from public record requests of criminal incident reports related to assault, sex crimes, and voyeurism in public restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms to measure safety and privacy violations in these spaces. This study finds that the passage of such laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces. Additionally, the study finds that reports of privacy and safety violations in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms are exceedingly rare. This study provides evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded.

So, the evidence does not support the claim that allowing trans people to use the bathroom of their choice increases the chance of sexual assault.

Now, if we also take into account the fact that trans people are likely to be targeted for sexual assault, it seems illogical to argue that they should be forced to use the men’s bathroom where they are even more likely to be assaulted, if the goal is to reduce sexual assault.

Discrimination protection should not extend to automatic access to same sex facilities or involve situations where women and girls can reasonably expect that their safety and privacy will be protected. It's quite extraordinary that this has to be explained and negotiated today.

Transgender people should have the same discrimination protection as other people with a health condition.


So you think that trans people should receive protection from discrimination and therefore disagree with Trump.

The bathroom thing seems not to be related.
#14979736
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why would we gave to change the definition if gehder identity to include “every physical feature of a person”? That makes no sense.

That's not what I wrote, and it's still up to you to prove that everybody, including myself, has a gender identity.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it is about the definition of gender. Trump tried to change the defintion of gender to mean “sex” in irder to make it legal to, for example, deny housing to trans people.

No it's about the definition of sex which was expanded under Obama. The protected category has always been sex.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If your only criticism is that the section you quoted is vague and can be misinterpreted (if the context is ignored), then sure. It does not change the fact that determining the sex of a trans person is not as cut and dry as it is for cis people.

A person's beliefs and convictions are in no way relevant for determining sex in a medical context. Determining sex is absolutely cut and dry unless a person suffers from a sexual development disorder. But even for the majority of people with these condition establishing sex is usually straightforward.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please do not try to switch the burden of proof. In general, people are allowed to access those rights that others are allowed to access. Since you and I are allowed to use the bathroom that aligns with our gender identity, trans people should also have this right. This right can be waived or taken away if it can be shown that there is a negative impact if the rights are shared equally. For example, violent offenders do not have the same freedoms we do (they are in prison) because letting then walk the streets endangers us all. So, it is up to the people who wish to deny equality and allow discrimination (i.e. Trump and his supporters) who must explain why they can take away the rights of others.

Again, the protected category has always been sex (and Obama expanded its definition). I know progressives have a tenuous relationship with reality, but you guys need to make a minimal effort to get your facts straight.

Since you mention prisoners, convicted male rapists should by your logic be placed in female prisons (which already happened in the UK) and females who wish to be men would have to be placed in men's prison. Surely, nobody thinks this is a good idea.

I'm also not reversing the burden of proof. It's up to those who want to change long-standing practice and deviate from or completely disregard reality to make the case.

Pants-of-dog wrote:But if you insist:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-0335-z

So, the evidence does not support the claim that allowing trans people to use the bathroom of their choice increases the chance of sexual assault.

I can't access the full text of this paper and I wouldn't accept anything coming from a gender studies journal unless the results, analysis and data have been scrutinised by others who are familiar with the situation in Massachusetts.

I also take it that you are now of the view that police records are an accurate reflection of the actual incidence of sexual harassment and assault. That's an interesting change from your previous position.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you think that trans people should receive protection from discrimination and therefore disagree with Trump. The bathroom thing seems not to be related.

Whatever discrimination protection exists for people with health conditions, such as this for example, should obviously apply to them. I'm not aware that Trump is planning changes in that respect.
#14979740
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:That's not what I wrote, and it's still up to you to prove that everybody, including myself, has a gender identity.


No, I have already pointed out that gender identity is a thing.

No it's about the definition of sex which was expanded under Obama. The protected category has always been sex.

Again, the protected category has always been sex (and Obama expanded its definition). I know progressives have a tenuous relationship with reality, but you guys need to make a minimal effort to get your facts straight.


No. If that is what you think, please reread the OP.

This topic is about Trump changing the definti9n of the word gender in order to remove discrimination protection for trans people. The definition he has proposed is the unscientific defintion that gender and sex are the same thing.

A person's beliefs and convictions are in no way relevant for determining sex in a medical context. Determining sex is absolutely cut and dry unless a person suffers from a sexual development disorder. But even for the majority of people with these condition establishing sex is usually straightforward.


Please reread the actual words of the expert you cited. This is all dealt with there. Your argument here is based entiron a misunderstanding of what the expert wrote, probably because the important parts were left out of your original quote.

Since you mention prisoners, convicted male rapists should by your logic be placed in female prisons (which already happened in the UK) and females who wish to be men would have to be placed in men's prison. Surely, nobody thinks this is a good idea.


No. i am not assuming that we should treat bathrooms and prisons the same way.

I'm also not reversing the burden of proof. It's up to those who want to change long-standing practice and deviate from or completely disregard reality to make the case.


I already explained how you switched burden of proof, and then I pisted evidence showing your claim was wrong anyway, so the question is moot.

I can't access the full text of this paper and I wouldn't accept anything coming from a gender studies journal unless the results, analysis and data have been scrutinised by others who are familiar with the situation in Massachusetts.


Your opinion on the evidence is irrelevant.

The fact is that you did not present evidence for your claim that bathroom polices increase the risk of assault, and the evidence we do have contradicts it.

So unless you can provide evidence, this part of our discussion is over and you were wrong.

I also take it that you are now of the view that police records are an accurate reflection of the actual incidence of sexual harassment and assault. That's an interesting change from your previous position.


Feel free to explain why we should not trust the stats this time.

Whatever discrimination protection exists for people with health conditions, such as this for example, should obviously apply to them. I'm not aware that Trump is planning changes in that respect.


Then you really need to reread the OP.

And I assume we agree that your bathroom argument is not a good argument to deprive trans peoole of protection from discrimination.
#14979748
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, I have already pointed out that gender identity is a thing.

You ought to be prepared to back up your claims. There's no point in debate otherwise. I understand why you object to this so strenuously. The whole house of cards that is transgender ideology would come crashing down if you did.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. If that is what you think, please reread the OP. This topic is about Trump changing the definti9n of the word gender in order to remove discrimination protection for trans people. The definition he has proposed is the unscientific defintion that gender and sex are the same thing.

Again, Trump is rolling back the expansion of the definition of sex that was introduced under Obama. This is not in question.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please reread the actual words of the expert you cited. This is all dealt with there. Your argument here is based entiron a misunderstanding of what the expert wrote, probably because the important parts were left out of your original quote.

There's no misunderstanding on my part. Beliefs and convictions are irrelevant when determining sex from a medical perspective. Anybody who tells you otherwise is quite likely a dangerous quack.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. i am not assuming that we should treat bathrooms and prisons the same way.

But gender identity determines sex! Or does it? :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:I already explained how you switched burden of proof, and then I pisted evidence showing your claim was wrong anyway, so the question is moot. Your opinion on the evidence is irrelevant. The fact is that you did not present evidence for your claim that bathroom polices increase the risk of assault, and the evidence we do have contradicts it. So unless you can provide evidence, this part of our discussion is over and you were wrong. Feel free to explain why we should not trust the stats this time.

The burden of proof is definitely on your side of this debate. Females (which is defined by sex) have always been the protected class, and it's you who wish to change that.

The only interest anybody should have in gender studies journals is for their comedic value. Their published material should not be trusted by default.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free to explain why we should not trust the stats this time.

Do you believe that police records are an accurate reflection of the actual incidence of sexual harassment and assault?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then you really need to reread the OP.

Not at all.
#14979775
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:You ought to be prepared to back up your claims. There's no point in debate otherwise. I understand why you object to this so strenuously. The whole house of cards that is transgender ideology would come crashing down if you did.


We should clarify claims here.

There is the claim that you, Kaiserschmarrn, have a gender identity.

Then there is the similar, but still different, claim that people have gender identities.

The first claim is very difficult to verify one way or the other. Perhaps you are some sort of psychologically abnormal person who has no gender identity. That possibility exists.

But the second claim is easily supported by simply looking at the work of professionals who study this, as well as the testimony of people who have issues with gender identity.

If we accpet the second claim as true, and we assume that you are like everyone else, it is logical to assume you have a gender identity.

Again, Trump is rolling back the expansion of the definition of sex that was introduced under Obama. This is not in question.

There's no misunderstanding on my part. Beliefs and convictions are irrelevant when determining sex from a medical perspective. Anybody who tells you otherwise is quite likely a dangerous quack.


People can simply go back and reread the text.

I suggest reading the entire text as I quoted it, since it says something more complicated than the strawman you keep addressing.

But gender identity determines sex! Or does it? :lol:


How is that a response to what I said? You seem to just be spouting random talking points now.

The burden of proof is definitely on your side of this debate. Females (which is defined by sex) have always been the protected class, and it's you who wish to change that.


No. I have already explicitly pointed out that no one is trying to change sex as a protected class. If you wish to keep pretending I claimed this, then please address my previous clarification.

At best, you can argue that Obama added gender identity to the list of protected categories by expanding the definition of sex in some weird way. And even if this is the case, no one is then trying to take away protection from women.

Instead, more protections are being extended to trans people. Is that a problem?

The only interest anybody should have in gender studies journals is for their comedic value. Their published material should not be trusted by default.


Again, your opinion about the evidence is irrelevant.

Do you believe that police records are an accurate reflection of the actual incidence of sexual harassment and assault?

Not at all.


I would suspect police of actually inflating the numberof supoosed attacks against women by trans people, since most cops are very conservative about gender.

So, if there is bias, it would support your bias.

Now, do you think it should be legal for trans people to be denied housing because they are trans?

Should be they denied medical insurance?

Should they be denied to participate in military service?
#14979776
One Degree wrote:You were acting informed on the subject, so it seemed time effective to ask you rather than doing research. Since you don’t know, then I guess I will look elsewhere if I ever feel the need to do so.

Yeah, I would not take Driee as a valid source, because he certainly does not seem like an expert and he often times seems delusional to me.
#14985123
Pants-of-dog wrote:We should clarify claims here. There is the claim that you, Kaiserschmarrn, have a gender identity. Then there is the similar, but still different, claim that people have gender identities. The first claim is very difficult to verify one way or the other. Perhaps you are some sort of psychologically abnormal person who has no gender identity. That possibility exists. But the second claim is easily supported by simply looking at the work of professionals who study this, as well as the testimony of people who have issues with gender identity. If we accpet the second claim as true, and we assume that you are like everyone else, it is logical to assume you have a gender identity.

Well, it was your sole claim when you entered this discussion with me that I have a gender identity despite my own statement to the contrary. There are plenty of people, including transgender, who say they don't have one. For instance, you probably know that there are people who say they feel like they have no gender, neither woman or man or anything in between. From the above, it seems you consider these people to be abnormal.

What I and everybody has is awareness of and knowledge about our sex, but that is no different to awareness of having two arms and five fingers on each hand.

I'd be willing to discuss this further, but you'd have to cease your sophistry first, starting with acknowledging that the existence of gender identity (mine or everybody else's) cannot be proven. I suspect 50 years ago hardly anybody would have agreed with having a gender identity because the concept had not entered public consciousness. It's just a useful term to describe the feelings of people who have an illness or impairment, which has been seized and instrumentalised by political ideologues for their own ends.

Pants-of-dog wrote:People can simply go back and reread the text. I suggest reading the entire text as I quoted it, since it says something more complicated than the strawman you keep addressing.

Obviously people can decide for themselves, although they won't come away any wiser by reading the confused activist text in the NYT.

As for the expert witness statement, I agree that people should read it so that they appreciate how far removed from biological facts and reality medical experts can become if they are ideologically motivated.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. I have already explicitly pointed out that no one is trying to change sex as a protected class. If you wish to keep pretending I claimed this, then please address my previous clarification.

At best, you can argue that Obama added gender identity to the list of protected categories by expanding the definition of sex in some weird way. And even if this is the case, no one is then trying to take away protection from women.

Instead, more protections are being extended to trans people. Is that a problem?

If males are regarded as females for legal (and going by the expert witness now apparently also for medical) purposes, it actually makes a mockery of protections based on sex. Obviously, it's a problem when those men's protection clashes with the protection of females. I've repeated and clarified my position several times now and you still pretend to not understand it, so this is the last time I'm responding to this unless you acknowledge the obvious reality of what I'm saying.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, your opinion about the evidence is irrelevant. I would suspect police of actually inflating the numberof supoosed attacks against women by trans people, since most cops are very conservative about gender. So, if there is bias, it would support your bias. Now, do you think it should be legal for trans people to be denied housing because they are trans? Should be they denied medical insurance? Should they be denied to participate in military service?

As I mentioned earlier, I cannot access the full text. Presumably you cannot either, so it's safe to assume that you don't care about the quality of the paper as long as it supports your point of view. If one knows anything at all about the standards and ideological outlook of gender studies journals, this paper should not be trusted at face value at all - rather the default should be distrust unless somebody with knowledge about the situation in Massachusetts who isn't a progressive zealot has scrutinised it.

Transgender people should have the same rights as other people with (mental) illnesses.
#14985129
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:
Well, it was your sole claim when you entered this discussion with me that I have a gender identity despite my own statement to the contrary. There are plenty of people, including transgender, who say they don't have one. For instance, you probably know that there are people who say they feel like they have no gender, neither woman or man or anything in between. From the above, it seems you consider these people to be abnormal.


Not quite.

You seem to be misunderstanding both myself, and people who are gender fluid.

When I sau everyone has a gender identity, that means that everyone has their own sense of what their gender is or is not. You seem to think I am saying that people feel male or female.

Please note the difference between the two.

You also incorrectly think genderfluid people are saying they have no gender identity, when instead they are saying that they have a sense of what their gender is or is not, and it does not fit into the traditional binary.

Again, please note the difference between the two.

What I and everybody has is awareness of and knowledge about our sex, but that is no different to awareness of having two arms and five fingers on each hand.


That does not mean you cannot also have a sense of your gender.

I'd be willing to discuss this further, but you'd have to cease your sophistry first, starting with acknowledging that the existence of gender identity (mine or everybody else's) cannot be proven. I suspect 50 years ago hardly anybody would have agreed with having a gender identity because the concept had not entered public consciousness. It's just a useful term to describe the feelings of people who have an illness or impairment, which has been seized and instrumentalised by political ideologues for their own ends.


As far as I can tell, this part has no argument.

Obviously people can decide for themselves, although they won't come away any wiser by reading the confused activist text in the NYT.

As for the expert witness statement, I agree that people should read it so that they appreciate how far removed from biological facts and reality medical experts can become if they are ideologically motivated.


Again, it only seems “removed from biological facts and reality” if you only selectively read specific phrases out of context.

:*(
If males are regarded as females for legal (and going by the expert witness now apparently also for medical) purposes, it actually makes a mockery of protections based on sex. Obviously, it's a problem when those men's protection clashes with the protection of females. I've repeated and clarified my position several times now and you still pretend to not understand it, so this is the last time I'm responding to this unless you acknowledge the obvious reality of what I'm saying.


Since the last time we discussed this was over two weeks ago, I would have to reread our entire exchange to have any idea of what you are discussing here.

You seem to be saying that the mere acknowledgment of trans people is somehow an affront to women’s rights somehow.

As I mentioned earlier, I cannot access the full text. Presumably you cannot either, so it's safe to assume that you don't care about the quality of the paper as long as it supports your point of view. If one knows anything at all about the standards and ideological outlook of gender studies journals, this paper should not be trusted at face value at all - rather the default should be distrust unless somebody with knowledge about the situation in Massachusetts who isn't a progressive zealot has scrutinised it.


Again, your opinion of the evidence is irrelevant.

Transgender people should have the same rights as other people with (mental) illnesses.


That is not what I asked.

Now, do you think it should be legal for trans people to be denied housing because they are trans? Should be they denied medical insurance? Should they be denied to participate in military service?
  • 1
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 33

You are dealing with lying president and a bunch […]

Here are another few reasons why travelling by tra[…]

Paris may ban SUVs

I am not afraid of protesters. The scooter would[…]

Do you consider this different from all the other[…]