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?
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?