Proposed Rollback of Transgender Protections

[JazzGal]

I am resistant to the self-classification system because it does not result in a uniform definition of gender (I don't know what someone means when they say male or female). Also, some people don't feel like they fall in either category so that seems a bit off to me. I also wonder if society would be healthier in general and also more accepting of the LGBT community if we stop connecting people's sex with the rest of their identify.

It would depend upon how these classifications are used. If your sex classification is how you are identified on all of your government-issued documents (which is what is used for employment, school, passports, etc), then there is going to be problems for anyone who identifies as a different gender than their sex.

 

[babe]

It would depend upon how these classifications are used. If your sex classification is how you are identified on all of your government-issued documents (which is what is used for employment, school, passports, etc), then there is going to be problems for anyone who identifies as a different gender than their sex.

I wouldn't want us to officially go to a genetic test, including microheterogeneity markers and such, or to some kind of test of hormone levels to "scientifically" designate any of our government classifications. I think the real answer it to consider all people as "human" and be done with it.


Beyond that, it's nobody's business. Period.

 

[One Brow]

I am resistant to the self-classification system because it does not result in a uniform definition of gender (I don't know what someone means when they say male or female). Also, some people don't feel like they fall in either category so that seems a bit off to me.

So, we need a simple classification system for your comfort level?

I also wonder if society would be healthier in general and also more accepting of the LGBT community if we stop connecting people's sex with the rest of their identify.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but the administration's proposal does the opposite.

 

[The Privileged]

Trump is desperate to change the narrative from his disastrous foreign policy and capitulation to Putin, Kim, and MBS, endless corruption, and lack of legislative wins to loser identity politics.

Republicans know that they can’t campaign on things like deregulation and tax cuts. Democrats own them on health care.

But republicans do know that by tossing out some red meat exploiting fears about LGBT, South American caravans, and “unknown middle easterners”, they can draw out enough of the racist to can maintain control of congress.

So expect plenty of racist tweets in the upcoming weeks. Lots of ISIS and MS13 stuff. Probably toss in a few anti-NFL tweets. Lots of conspiracy nonsense about the Clintons and Soros and the “deep state.” And plenty of identity politics to change the narrative from real issues to identity. “Us” v “Them.”

I’d say this is a losing strategy but I’ve learned to never underestimate the stupity and short-sightedness of the American electorate

The Thriller (of all people) calling people stupid while spewing made up scenarios is pure gold.. thanks for the laugh

 

[Darkwing Duck]

So, we need a simple classification system for your comfort level?

Gender is societal in creation, not individually created. Otherwise it has no definition.

Plus, what works for 99.9+% of the population, specifically in regards to sex, creates efficiency in categorization, especially when sex is of critical importance, like health or even insurance.

 

[One Brow]

Gender is societal in creation, not individually created. Otherwise it has no definition.

I disagree. It's responded to in society, and we teach cultural understanding, but each individual creates and interprets their gender uniquely.

Plus, what works for 99.9+% of the population, specifically in regards to sex, creates efficiency in categorization, especially when sex is of critical importance, like health or even insurance.

I agree that it helps to have sex categories; I disagree they need to be simple and easily defined.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I disagree. It's responded to in society, and we teach cultural understanding, but each individual creates and interprets their gender uniquely.

Gender is an ideal, or an expectation. Adherence to it is certainly up to the individual, but others in society will view based on "compliance." That's a societal construct, not an individual one. People of the society tend to pool what those ideals or expectations are.

 

[Archie Moses]

Social constructs are, to say the least, interesting. Are there different types of social constructs @Darkwing Duck? (If that question doesn't make sense, I can try to explain what I mean.)

The thing that's weird to me with gender being a social construct is why the standard came up with just two genders. I imagine gender is largely based on masculine and feminine traits, yet we all are different with what we identify with so being a social construct, gender is like finger prints - everyone is unique.

I don't see the problem with marking birth certificates male or female for sex and or gender because it pretty much covers 95% of the people (I could be wrong, just throwing a number out there.) I don't see a problem with people requesting gender changes on legal documents either. I don't have a problem with the government keeping track of us through knowing our sex and what genitalia we are born with. I know there are some people who are born with both, but that's not the norm (there are people born with Situs inversus, webbed toes, six fingers on one hand, etc but we know that's not the norm too) so having sex listed as male of female is sufficient.

As to Bulletproof saying he feels this could escalate things, I felt like that for a little bit too. I told my brother the other day that if Trump gets reelected next term that I wouldn't be surprised if some **** went down. I'm already surprised no one has tried to take him out already with the level or crazies out there and the level of hate people have for Trump.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

The reason it's bad to put gender on a birth certificate is that gender is a nebulous thing. Sex is less so, with fewer non-binary instances that it works as a descriptor. Gender is constantly in flux because gender is a societal thing, which means it's created by a population that identifies as similar to each other through various means, so the population is always changing, as well as the physical and cultural environment around it.

Gender is often role assigning, at least in its original formation. Fulfilling a gender role aptly betters the society you're in. At least, that's the general concept in smaller populations. As an example, "man" is a gender. Do you think what it is to be a man is the same now as it was in the 1950s? The 1850s? The same as a Saudi Arabian man? A Grecian at the turn of the common era? The same as an aboriginal South American in the jungles of the Amazon? Generally a female and male gender exist in a society, broken into child and adult forms with third genders existing overtly in some societies and covertly existing in others. I'd argue "gay man" gender has existed in western culture for some time, covertly. That makes it impossible to assign gender at birth

 

[One Brow]

Gender is an ideal, or an expectation. Adherence to it is certainly up to the individual, but others in society will view based on "compliance." That's a societal construct, not an individual one. People of the society tend to pool what those ideals or expectations are.

I've been carefully considering this, and while I don't disagree, I would modify slightly. Gender is a combination of various ideal traits, perhaps not quite a checklist but a similar notion, and fitting into a gender category seems to consist of meeting enough of these traits in a sufficient fashion to the beholder, as opposed to gender being a single ideal. I think there is room for societal compliance and for individual interpretation in this notion. You may choose to conform to one gender in dress, mannerisms, etc. while not choosing to conform in job choice, and different people will interpret your choices differently.

 

[Archie Moses]

https://nationalpost.com/news/world...1eHIe1DF-s4xH9ZEK4zWgBjKIwF9qQ1YfBc6Qf2l4ObQ8

Anyone read this or hear about it? Interesting read.

 

[One Brow]

https://nationalpost.com/news/world...1eHIe1DF-s4xH9ZEK4zWgBjKIwF9qQ1YfBc6Qf2l4ObQ8

Anyone read this or hear about it? Interesting read.

You find vague accusations and a lack of data interesting?

 

[gandalfe]

Social constructs are, to say the least, interesting. Are there different types of social constructs @Darkwing Duck? (If that question doesn't make sense, I can try to explain what I mean.)

The thing that's weird to me with gender being a social construct is why the standard came up with just two genders. I imagine gender is largely based on masculine and feminine traits, yet we all are different with what we identify with so being a social construct, gender is like finger prints - everyone is unique.

I don't see the problem with marking birth certificates male or female for sex and or gender because it pretty much covers 95% of the people (I could be wrong, just throwing a number out there.) I don't see a problem with people requesting gender changes on legal documents either. I don't have a problem with the government keeping track of us through knowing our sex and what genitalia we are born with. I know there are some people who are born with both, but that's not the norm (there are people born with Situs inversus, webbed toes, six fingers on one hand, etc but we know that's not the norm too) so having sex listed as male of female is sufficient.

So, are you saying that only the majority needs to be cared about by the government and society? What percentage does it need to be before we can count on the government giving a... care?

 

[Archie Moses]

So, are you saying that only the majority needs to be cared about by the government and society? What percentage does it need to be before we can count on the government giving a... care?

No, I'm not saying only majority needs to be cared about.
Government should care about all percentages, but they should also do things that make sense too or no?

 

[LogGrad98]

It seems funny to try to leave sex out of discussions of gender. It is fairly obvious that societal gender separations grew initially out of the biological roles of procreation. It isn't like some early society had these gender roles pop up then said "hey check this out, it just so happens that our arbitrary divisions of gender seems parsed largely along the lines if those who fertilize the egg and those that gestate it! Imagine that?"

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I've been carefully considering this, and while I don't disagree, I would modify slightly. Gender is a combination of various ideal traits, perhaps not quite a checklist but a similar notion, and fitting into a gender category seems to consist of meeting enough of these traits in a sufficient fashion to the beholder, as opposed to gender being a single ideal. I think there is room for societal compliance and for individual interpretation in this notion. You may choose to conform to one gender in dress, mannerisms, etc. while not choosing to conform in job choice, and different people will interpret your choices differently.

Sure, as the population is constantly changing, the ideal never exists long enough or is in consensus enough in larger populations to be able to be seen as fixed or exact. I think the checklist concept is a good one to consider and works to understand what gender does. How one rejects or accepts the ideals and concepts of one's gender is I would think akin to what you're considering as interpretation. The semantics involved here, I would say, is important to distinguish so that gender is defined in a societal concept first with any one individual within that population fitting to all its concepts within various degrees and as a result of that, the ideal or expectations of a gender change because of that.

 

[One Brow]

It seems funny to try to leave sex out of discussions of gender. It is fairly obvious that societal gender separations grew initially out of the biological roles of procreation. It isn't like some early society had these gender roles pop up then said "hey check this out, it just so happens that our arbitrary divisions of gender seems parsed largely along the lines if those who fertilize the egg and those that gestate it! Imagine that?"

Perhaps you could expand on this without relying on just-so stories? Which divisions of gender do you see at parsed along the lines of who fertilizes and who gestates?

Yes, it's a trap.

 

[LogGrad98]

Perhaps you could expand on this without relying on just-so stories? Which divisions of gender do you see at parsed along the lines of who fertilizes and who gestates?

Yes, it's a trap.

Your desperate need to inflate your ego through vague non-specific replies and condescension is hardly a trap. It's actually becoming a little bit sad. You used to debate through source and reason. You have really descended into sarcasm and passive aggression that almost screams insecurity lately. You ok?

 

[One Brow]

Your desperate need to inflate your ego through vague non-specific replies and condescension is hardly a trap. It's actually becoming a little bit sad. You used to debate through source and reason. You have really descended into sarcasm and passive aggression that almost screams insecurity lately. You ok?

Questions are not replies. Despite my initial doubts, I was curious if you could actually justify your comment with something well-thought-out reasoning. I warned you of a trap to emphasize my doubts. To me, the modern divisions along gender have little to do with a fertilization/gestation divide. Women have always worked as hard as men, have undertaken the same difficult chores whenever they were allowed to. They have been warriors, hunters, and leaders throughout history.

Still, it's true enough that I've been going through some issues in my personal life. Perhaps I was harsher on Archie Moses than I would have been a year ago.

I suppose part of it is that over the years I have felt more redundant. 15 years ago I often felt like the only poster who made certain points, now I see them from Zombie, Harambe, Darkwing Duck, dalamon, Siro (when he was here) and others. I've even seen movement on issues from posters like Bulletproof, Stoked and you. Has my decreasing uniqueness led to insecurity in my role? Perhaps. I'll have to think that over.

 

[One Brow]

I told my brother the other day that if Trump gets reelected next term that I wouldn't be surprised if some **** went down. I'm already surprised no one has tried to take him out already with the level or crazies out there and the level of hate people have for Trump.

You mean, like the recent suspicious packages that popped up a the homes of George Soros, the Clintons, and the Obamas? The level of hate is ramped up even higher on the right.