Trump Administration Plans To Define Gender As What You Are Born As, Rolling Back Obama-Era Policies

[Proto]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html

 

This could lead to trans people being removed from civil rights protections and having even further difficulties regarding health care then before.

 

This is yet another example of the Trump Administrations ddislike of trans people including banning them from the military earlier in his career and is absolutely despicable.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Personally really happy he's finally doing this. They're adding a new letter a day these days. Trans people existed before Obama got involved, and they'll continue to exist now. The nation should not have to bend over backwards to accommodate less than 1% of the population. If the south is cited, Blacks were a sizable portion of the south, not a statistically insignificant portion of the population, therefore the discrimination actually mattered. 

 

As for bathrooms, it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. I've peed in woman's rest room before when I had to go and my balls didn't drop off and sink me into a spiral of depression. It's not a country club, just do your sheet and get out (I'm with neither side on this issue, both make much out of noting).

 

The bigger issue is forcing people to call a spoon a fork, and in some states, like a certain disgraceful westernmost state, the government will punish you for not using this Orwellian language. 

 

Trump admin should do all they can to split the LGBT movement. Support gay rights, and help the existing split in the community widen. That's the politically smart thing to do

[Proto]

I think that someone should not be able to fire someone or discriminate against them because they are trans and I believe that individuals.

 

Name the law that prevents you from misgendering someone in California.

 

I agree, with bathrooms it doesn't matter, trans people should be able to do the business where they please.

 

How are laws preventing people from discrimination against a group and making it easier to get health care regarding their surgeries "bending over backwards to accommodate someone?"

 

Do you believe that wheelchair accessibility (something that is far more expensive regarding accomdation) should be terminated regarding the fact that only 1% of Americans require use of a wheelchair?

[mido9]

You can't change yourgender in any true way and knowing your true gender can be important forsome government functions, or for some health problems or procedures

[Proto]

You can't change yourgender in any true way and knowing your true gender can be important forsome government functions, or for some health problems or procedures

We already have something for determining someone's "true gender" (I like using born gender here but this works for here). It's called sex. And every doctor has access to a transgendered persons sex already.

 

Trump wants to equivocate the two, doing so will remove transgendered people from being a protected class and complicate their relationship with health care

[mido9]

We already have something for determining someone's "true gender" (I like using born gender here but this works for here). It's called sex. And every doctor has access to a transgendered persons sex already.

 

Trump wants to equivocate the two, doing so will remove transgendered people from being a protected class and complicate their relationship with health care

Their relationship to healthcare is entirely independent of their nonborn gender so it doesn't really matter. Also, discrimination based on gender is not allowed regardless of whether it's(the discrimination) based on the gender you have either before or after changing it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

To hold to the belief that men cannot get pregnant and women do not have penises is not to deny any person’s humanity. It’s to reject an argument about identity.

 

Further more, if we are defining gender based on female or masculine characteristics, there are 7 Billion genders since every person has a unique mix of sex hormones. 

 

I think you should be able to fire someone if they're in a state of mental delusion. 

 

You misunderstand me, I think that the world won't end if a tranny pees in the wrong bathroom, and also the world wont end if a tranny has to pee in a bathroom they don't want to live in.

 

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/miscellaneous/cb12-134.html

 

1/5 people are disabled in some manner

 

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights

 

I suppose you're right in that it's currently limited to nursing homes. 

 

I have a question for you though, you know Ca's new insane rule that each board should should have one female on it? Isn't that transphobic? You're assuming genders!

[Proto]

Merged this with the post below

[Proto]

Alright, now I can dig into the meat of this.

 

I never argued the humanity bit, I'm just saying that we should be nice to people who're probably having enough problems with self-identity issues and such. No reason to make life harder for them by repealing stuff that was already there unless you really got it out for them.

 

Gender is something I consider to be constructed by social norms, mostly because I don't walk around past everyone I meet and start patting down their crotches or anything. Also considering the fact that there is the very real case (though it's pretty small) of people being born hermaphroditic or having some problem with their genitals I don't think it's very proper to exclude them for it's kinda just shittin' on someone with a disability, which I'm against.

Your view on bathrooms is fine, I just don't really understand why you brought it up when I didn't mention it at all and it didn't really lead anywhere.

 

Sure, but that census only implies that they are disabled in some manner. But there are only 3.4 million americans who are wheelchair bound. Disability can range from being armless to being mentally impaired to being blind, all of which have nothing to do with needing ramps. Wheelchair accessibility is exclusively making life better for those about 1% of the population so why should it be enforced under your logic? 

As cited by the study you linked: 

 

 

Oh, I mean considering that women are about 50% of the population and at the very least could assist in reaching or speaking from a demographic assuming the ABSOLUTE worst case scenario that a company would have to hire a less qualified person in order to meet the quota, I don't really disagree. That also wouldn't be "transphobic" or "assuming people's gender" at all since I see transwomen as women, because someones naughty bits doesn't matter unless you're dating/married to them. Throwing out buzzwords doesn't make a joke.

[Proto]

 

Their relationship to healthcare is entirely independent of their nonborn gender so it doesn't really matter. Also, discrimination based on gender is not allowed regardless of whether it's(the discrimination) based on the gender you have either before or after changing it.

 

The healthcare comes down to whether the surgeries would be covered by health care, which means that procedures such as hormones, sexual reassignment surgeries and other things might not be covered due to the lack of recognition as being transgendered as an actual condition by law. If this is to pass it's not inconceivable to think that coverage would stop (mostly because it'd be cheaper) from the companies.

Mido, they want to change "gender" in the gender discrimination laws to "sex". Which does nothing besides give leeway to people who wish to discriminate against someone who identifies and wishes to be referred to as a certain gender. If it's merely sex discrimination then the employer can merely say "hey i'm clearly not biased against dudes, i've got plenty of dudes on the workplace" while exploiting or harrassing a mtf person.

[vla1ne]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html

 

This could lead to trans people being removed from civil rights protections and having even further difficulties regarding health care then before.

 

This is yet another example of the Trump Administrations ddislike of trans people including banning them from the military earlier in his career and is absolutely despicable.

Why would they be removed from civil rights protections? They're still humans. as far as healthcare, trans still exists if they've already undergone the change, it's not like the medicines and procedures would vanish into thin air. 

 

Banning trans from the military is actually for the safety of everybody involved in the military. Many people who have sex changes need to take medications, and when you're deployed, that stream of medication is not guaranteed. It would be like allowing an asthmatic to participate, knowing he may not get his inhalers on time. It's a danger to themselves, and to their squadron when people with health conditions deploy. 

[Proto]

Why would they be removed from civil rights protections? They're still humans. as far as healthcare, trans still exists if they've already undergone the change, it's not like the medicines and procedures would vanish into thin air. 

 

Banning trans from the military is actually for the safety of everybody involved in the military. Many people who have sex changes need to take medications, and when you're deployed, that stream of medication is not guaranteed. It would be like allowing an asthmatic to participate, knowing he may not get his inhalers on time. It's a danger to themselves, and to their squadron when people with health conditions deploy. 

I've explained the civil rights protections in my recent reply to mido9. Basically, pretending that trans people don't exist is the same as pretending gay people don't exist. It means that if an employer or business owner or landowner decides to adjust treatment of a person based off of lets say, the fact that they decided to bring someone of the same gender home and they happen to be of a belief system that makes them despise that. If gay people are not a protected, identified class he can prove "hey i didn't discriminate against his being a guy, I got other guy tenants, get him out of there" and the law can't do anything about it. Same thing for trans people, or, people who transition who the landowner might be unaware of having transitioned and having that be against his moral belief system, he can kick them out IF they are not a protected class.

 

Not everyone in the military is deployed, just straight up so a blanket ban is incredibly stupid. Also by mentioning that these medications exist, as I described to mido9, the procedures and medical care would still exist but it might not be covered by health care in the future because of it not being recognized as a necessary procedure. Therefore, medications get more expensive, trans people who might not be old enough or haven't transitioned for whatever reason have to pay significantly more for their surgeries and so on.

[vla1ne]

I've explained the civil rights protections in my recent reply to mido9. Basically, pretending that trans people don't exist is the same as pretending gay people don't exist. It means that if an employer or business owner or landowner decides to adjust treatment of a person based off of lets say, the fact that they decided to bring someone of the same gender home and they happen to be of a belief system that makes them despise that. If gay people are not a protected, identified class he can prove "hey i didn't discriminate against his being a guy, I got other guy tenants, get him out of there" and the law can't do anything about it. Same thing for trans people, or, people who transition who the landowner might be unaware of having transitioned and having that be against his moral belief system, he can kick them out IF they are not a protected class.

 

Not everyone in the military is deployed, just straight up so a blanket ban is incredibly stupid. Also by mentioning that these medications exist, as I described to mido9, the procedures and medical care would still exist but it might not be covered by health care in the future because of it not being recognized as a necessary procedure. Therefore, medications get more expensive, trans people who might not be old enough or haven't transitioned for whatever reason have to pay significantly more for their surgeries and so on.

It's not pretending they don't exist, it's removing the assumed gender from the pool. They are protected still, discrimination of any kind is already banned. Sexual preference, sex, ect, discriminating based on any of that, is grounds to be sued. That doesn't change with this proposal.

 

Any and all people with health issues are generally restricted from military service. If you haven't had a sex change, then you are not trans. If you have, then you will likely require some form of hormone treatment, under those treatments, any potential side effects would still affect the people you are with in the military. That is still unfair to the people you are serving with. If you can show me any asthmatic who's serving in any area of the military, then i'll agree that a trans can serve there, if it's not suitable for an asthmatic to serve in the area, it's not fit for a trans person. What exactly about removing them from the definition of gender makes them unable to get medications?

 

Also, minor question, but i gotta properly define it before i go on: Are you seeing trans as trans male/female or trans as trans literally/everything? If it's the latter, this conversation was over before it began, if it's the former, then they still fall under the male/female spectrum. If anything, this actually makes them fit within the general description. Instead of being trans male/female, they're just male/female, switching over from one to the other when they finally have the surgery/hormone therapy. Seems pretty simple to me.

[Proto]

If that's the case, then why change it at all? Judging by Trump's recent activity it looks mostly like an attempt to make trans people's lives more difficult. I see the potential of great evil here and very little to gain from actually setting it in motion by changing "gender" to sex. 

 

Being transgender isn't a sex, nor is it a sexual preference. Your sex doesn't change and you can be a straight trans person or a gay trans person or a bi trans person. It's a gender identity. Changing the definition from gender to sex when it comes to discrimination laws simply opens the doors for more discrimination and questioning on whether people can actually change genders or not.

 

The idea that you haven't had a sex change yet, which may be due to your financial situation or other reasons then you're not trans is just, odd. But ok. You can actually just, stop taking hormones after a certain time of treatment depending on the trans person. Additionally waivers have been and are regularly granted for asthma sufferers who want to solely participate in non-combative roles.

 

And I've, literally explained it so I'm going to copy-paste it here.

" Not everyone in the military is deployed, just straight up so a blanket ban is incredibly stupid. Also by mentioning that these medications exist, as I described to mido9, the procedures and medical care would still exist but it might not be covered by health care in the future because of it not being recognized as a necessary procedure. Therefore, medications get more expensive, trans people who might not be old enough or haven't transitioned for whatever reason have to pay significantly more for their surgeries and so on. "

 

If something is not recognized by the law of the land then insurances have no reason to keep insuring it because every time a trans person pays for hormone therapy or a SRS it costs them money. From this legislation it would very easily open up the door for these treatments to not be covered by health care because the law no longer recognizes gender as a protected class or something that requires attention. They only care about the sex. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

"Gender is something I consider to be constructed by social norms, mostly because I don't walk around past everyone I meet and start patting down their crotches or anything. Also considering the fact that there is the very real case (though it's pretty small) of people being born hermaphroditic or having some problem with their genitals I don't think it's very proper to exclude them for it's kinda just shittin' on someone with a disability, which I'm against"

 

No but there are very clear visual clues

 

As for the Ca law, what stops a male from just saying he identifies as female and taking that spot

You're basically willing (and forcing the rest of us) to ignore our eyes for the feelz/delusion of someone else. This isn't to say that being Trans isn't real, just that it's not normal or healthy

[Proto]

There are women who have manly traits innately, there are men who resemble women innately. Straight up, sure there are visual/audio cues but if someone wishes to be called something or identify as something I don't see any issue with it. It doesn't harm my life in any way and it probably does a whole lot better for theirs to not have it shoved in their face that they don't pass.

 

Like, do you just walk around calling every fat person you meet fat? Do you just walk around calling every ugly person you meet ugly? Every obviously mentally disabled person retarded to their face? No. Because there's a sort of politeness that you give other human beings. I believe simply using pronouns is that same respect, they have to live with it so you might as well respect that. Makes it easier for them and (probably) easier for you since you're not expressing yourself as someone who disrespects someone randomly.

 

CA law? I guess nothing? But that's a kinda big what if there brody and whatever company tried that sheet would face a whole lot of flak from everyone. If that becomes an actual problem then sure I'm down for narrowing what makes a trans person, but right now? I'm doubtful that this bogeyman will actually come to light just because of how much of a PR disaster it would be.

 

Sure being trans isn't healthy. But neither is eating a shitton of red meat, smoking cigarettes, consuming a large amount of alcohol or staying on the computer all day. Even owning a gun increases your likelihood of dying from gun violence/suicide by a massive amount. I don't think you actually care about health here. And having heart disease, a shitload of debt, being overweight are "normal" does that make any of those things good? 
 

There's no reason to intentionally misgender a trans person unless you're an jabroni. You use them as a target instead of gay people, fat people, ugly people, mentally disabled people and wheelchair bound people because it is not normalized yet. You are being mean to a group of people because they do not have an established voice in politics and make up 1% of the population. Because you can.

And being mean to someone for no reason because you can is what a bully does.

[vla1ne]

If that's the case, then why change it at all? Judging by Trump's recent activity it looks mostly like an attempt to make trans people's lives more difficult. I see the potential of great evil here and very little to gain from actually setting it in motion by changing "gender" to sex. 

 

Being transgender isn't a sex, nor is it a sexual preference. Your sex doesn't change and you can be a straight trans person or a gay trans person or a bi trans person. It's a gender identity. Changing the definition from gender to sex when it comes to discrimination laws simply opens the doors for more discrimination and questioning on whether people can actually change genders or not.

 

The idea that you haven't had a sex change yet, which may be due to your financial situation or other reasons then you're not trans is just, odd. But ok. You can actually just, stop taking hormones after a certain time of treatment depending on the trans person. Additionally waivers have been and are regularly granted for asthma sufferers who want to solely participate in non-combative roles.

 

And I've, literally explained it so I'm going to copy-paste it here.

 

" Not everyone in the military is deployed, just straight up so a blanket ban is incredibly stupid. Also by mentioning that these medications exist, as I described to mido9, the procedures and medical care would still exist but it might not be covered by health care in the future because of it not being recognized as a necessary procedure. Therefore, medications get more expensive, trans people who might not be old enough or haven't transitioned for whatever reason have to pay significantly more for their surgeries and so on. "

 

If something is not recognized by the law of the land then insurances have no reason to keep insuring it because every time a trans person pays for hormone therapy or a SRS it costs them money. From this legislation it would very easily open up the door for these treatments to not be covered by health care because the law no longer recognizes gender as a protected class or something that requires attention. They only care about the sex. 

To simplify things. there's no need to have 3 different genders, there's only 2 sexes. If you're trans, your gender remains male or female, You simply jump between one or the other. gender identity is not gender. 

 

It's based off of sex though. Gender identity is not gender itself. Playing that game opens up the doors for a hell of a lot of things that simply don't work in real life. what discrimination? At that point, you are either male or female (to be changed upon sex change) so what discrimination actually comes from this? if anything, it sorts the entire mess from the gender pool and makes it far neater, where does the discrimination come in?

 

If you're too broke, too bad. I'm too broke for a car, but i'm saving up. Some things have to be worked towards. it might sound cruel, but it's a hard fact. if athsmatics can get waivers for non deployment, non combat service, then why wouldn't trans people? still i'd bet even athsmatics have to pass tests to prove they're sound in mind and (at least remotely sound in) body. 

 

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.

Sounds about right to me. Sounds to me like they're going to be basing their policies off of sex, and not gender. makes perfect sense. Removes the clutter and keeps things central. You still keep your human rights. you can use whatever pronouns you like, you just don't get to force other people (especially government) to play along. pretty simple imo. insurance agencies cover anything and everything they can if it can make them money. If it can't, then they won't cover it. so yeah, i agree that it will likely damage insurance policies down the line. that said, money finds a way. I'll bet some company finds a way to make a buck off of this and comes back with a new trans insurance policy. and aside from the sex change surgery and hormone pills, nothing much would really change on the insurance front, so there won't be too much of a gap if that does happen.

 

 

There are women who have manly traits innately, there are men who resemble women innately. Straight up, sure there are visual/audio cues but if someone wishes to be called something or identify as something I don't see any issue with it. It doesn't harm my life in any way and it probably does a whole lot better for theirs to not have it shoved in their face that they don't pass.

 

Like, do you just walk around calling every fat person you meet fat? Do you just walk around calling every ugly person you meet ugly? Every obviously mentally disabled person retarded to their face? No. Because there's a sort of politeness that you give other human beings. I believe simply using pronouns is that same respect, they have to live with it so you might as well respect that. Makes it easier for them and (probably) easier for you since you're not expressing yourself as someone who disrespects someone randomly.

 

CA law? I guess nothing? But that's a kinda big what if there brody and whatever company tried that sheet would face a whole lot of flak from everyone. If that becomes an actual problem then sure I'm down for narrowing what makes a trans person, but right now? I'm doubtful that this bogeyman will actually come to light just because of how much of a PR disaster it would be.

 

Sure being trans isn't healthy. But neither is eating a shitton of red meat, smoking cigarettes, consuming a large amount of alcohol or staying on the computer all day. Even owning a gun increases your likelihood of dying from gun violence/suicide by a massive amount. I don't think you actually care about health here. And having heart disease, a shitload of debt, being overweight are "normal" does that make any of those things good? 

 

There's no reason to intentionally misgender a trans person unless you're an jabroni. You use them as a target instead of gay people, fat people, ugly people, mentally disabled people and wheelchair bound people because it is not normalized yet. You are being mean to a group of people because they do not have an established voice in politics and make up 1% of the population. Because you can.

 

And being mean to someone for no reason because you can is what a bully does.

I don't mind people thinking they're something, but that doesn't mean everybody else has to call them that.

 

No, i call them by their names. It's when they tell me to call the the opposite of what they are that i walk away slowly. I don't mind politely stepping over an issue, What i mind is when they shove it in my face as if i have to play by their rules. that goes for pronouns as well. 

 

That's actually not a what if for the CA laws. It's already happened a few times. One guy almost away with a couple attempted sexual assaults because of it, another guy managed to take advantage of laws that favored women by identifying as trans, ect. it likely won't be too long before some company catches on and tosses a man claiming to be trans into the spot just to save themselves a bit of hassle.

 

Aren't most of those personal choices? in fact, the heart disease one's about the only thing you may not be able to avoid entirely.

 

Well, winter is an jabroni, but he's not wrong. And as far as i'm concerned, i just call people by their biological sex, because i really don't feel like dealing with people's preferred pronouns. All of the rest is an assumption. None of it's correct.

[Phantom Roxas]

Well, winter is an jabroni, but he's not wrong. And as far as i'm concerned, i just call people by their biological sex, because i really don't feel like dealing with people's preferred pronouns. All of the rest is an assumption. None of it's correct.

 

"I don't feel like dealing with people's preferences" makes it sound like that's somehow a bigger burden than it actually is. No one is being "forced" to play by anyone else's "rules", nor are they "shoving it in your face."

 

The idea that there are only two genders has been proven false. As scientific study has advanced over the years, it's more properly understood to be a broad spectrum, not a simple binary.

 

https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/

 

"I don't feel like dealing with it" isn't about being rational. It's about choosing to ignore modern science, so Proto is correct in stating that the primary reason to misgender someone is simply because of discrimination. 

 

Regarding the central topic, "Rolling Back Obama-Era Policies" really does sum up this administration's only strategy, since it's been stated time and again that Trump will reverse a policy simply because it happened during the Obama administration. You can debate the merits of those policies, but I truly don't believe that those merits mean anything to Trump. He will want it rolled back only because it's inherently tied to Obama. Given that he has actively rejected modern science, his policies come from a place of revisionist history, rather than from any sincere attempt to improve society and our understanding of science. When the vast majority of scientists will tell Trump one thing, he will push for the exact opposite direction just to spite them.

[UltimateIRS]

The idea that there are only two genders has been proven false. As scientific study has advanced over the years, it's more properly understood to be a broad spectrum, not a simple binary.

Just because some people have rare genetic defects doesn't mean sex is some kind of spectrum. For all functional purposes, there are two.

[Proto]

To simplify things. there's no need to have 3 different genders, there's only 2 sexes. If you're trans, your gender remains male or female, You simply jump between one or the other. gender identity is not gender. 

 

It's based off of sex though. Gender identity is not gender itself. Playing that game opens up the doors for a hell of a lot of things that simply don't work in real life. what discrimination? At that point, you are either male or female (to be changed upon sex change) so what discrimination actually comes from this? if anything, it sorts the entire mess from the gender pool and makes it far neater, where does the discrimination come in?

 

If you're too broke, too bad. I'm too broke for a car, but i'm saving up. Some things have to be worked towards. it might sound cruel, but it's a hard fact. if athsmatics can get waivers for non deployment, non combat service, then why wouldn't trans people? still i'd bet even athsmatics have to pass tests to prove they're sound in mind and (at least remotely sound in) body. 

 

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.

Sounds about right to me. Sounds to me like they're going to be basing their policies off of sex, and not gender. makes perfect sense. Removes the clutter and keeps things central. You still keep your human rights. you can use whatever pronouns you like, you just don't get to force other people (especially government) to play along. pretty simple imo. insurance agencies cover anything and everything they can if it can make them money. If it can't, then they won't cover it. so yeah, i agree that it will likely damage insurance policies down the line. that said, money finds a way. I'll bet some company finds a way to make a buck off of this and comes back with a new trans insurance policy. and aside from the sex change surgery and hormone pills, nothing much would really change on the insurance front, so there won't be too much of a gap if that does happen.

You're hitting me with the "what discrimination"? Well, they have a far higher chance of being bullied to the point of killing themselves, 25% mentioned losing a job for refusing to confirm to gender norms, they're nearly four times as likely to be in poverty, and around 90% have said that they've experienced some sort of transgender-based discrimination. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/22/the-state-of-transgender-america-massive-discrimination-little-data/?utm_term=.a6f1af813b79

 

"You're too broke for a car" is a shitty comparison to make. They can afford it, this is in the direction of enacting policies that will unnecessarily make it far more costly to do something that solves their gender dysphoria. The comparison between health care coverage and the car is so garbage like. This is a really shitty argument. Would you argue that if a drug addict's premiums for care went off due to not being covered by healthcare they should "work for" being able to go to rehab? Should a suicidal person have to "work for" anti-depressants? Should someone who's dying from AIDS or diabetes need to "work for" their medication to live when they're rendered incredibly weak? Seriously?

 

The last part is just something we're never gonna agree on, I think that insurance will likely be exploitative since it's such a niche market and a very easy monopoly. You can be optimistic if you want, but judging the treatment from higher powers thusfar I doubt that the results will be good.

 

 

I don't mind people thinking they're something, but that doesn't mean everybody else has to call them that.

 

No, i call them by their names. It's when they tell me to call the the opposite of what they are that i walk away slowly. I don't mind politely stepping over an issue, What i mind is when they shove it in my face as if i have to play by their rules. that goes for pronouns as well. 

 

That's actually not a what if for the CA laws. It's already happened a few times. One guy almost away with a couple attempted sexual assaults because of it, another guy managed to take advantage of laws that favored women by identifying as trans, ect. it likely won't be too long before some company catches on and tosses a man claiming to be trans into the spot just to save themselves a bit of hassle.

 

Aren't most of those personal choices? in fact, the heart disease one's about the only thing you may not be able to avoid entirely.

 

Well, winter is an jabroni, but he's not wrong. And as far as i'm concerned, i just call people by their biological sex, because i really don't feel like dealing with people's preferred pronouns. All of the rest is an assumption. None of it's correct.

I mean sure but if you're hired by someone and they keep hitting you with the "hey fatass", "you giant piece of lard" "why don't you take off a few pounds, fatty" then hey, that should be counting as harassment right?

 

You call them by their name, sure, instead of fatass, retard, or ugly, other nouns that you could easily use to express both your disgust and make them feel like sheet. But, you don't do that because you're not an jabroni. 

 

I'm sorry I gotta do this but since Winter keeps referencing sheet that doesn't go down in California I straight up don't trust what you debate folk have to say about it, so I'm gonna need to hit you with the "SOURCE OR GTFO".

 

Yes, which gives them MORE scrutiny to be torn apart and discouraged and probably shat on instead of people picking on trans people which is something that is mental and is straight up not a choice. Unless you fellas are gonna take down all the sheet that's optional that murders you that the media pushes, I don't want to hear about someone doing something that prevents them from killing themselves out of hatred from their own body as "unhealthy".

 

Their "biological sex"? What're you doing just grabbing everyone by their junk the second you walk past them? I didn't know 45th had this much impact over the common conservative.

[vla1ne]

 

"I don't feel like dealing with people's preferences" makes it sound like that's somehow a bigger burden than it actually is. No one is being "forced" to play by anyone else's "rules", nor are they "shoving it in your face."

 

The idea that there are only two genders has been proven false. As scientific study has advanced over the years, it's more properly understood to be a broad spectrum, not a simple binary.

 

https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/

 

"I don't feel like dealing with it" isn't about being rational. It's about choosing to ignore modern science, so Proto is correct in stating that the primary reason to misgender someone is simply because of discrimination. 

 

Never said it's a burden of any magnitude, i simply am not the type to play along. I'll call you your name, and refer to you by your sex. your assumed gender is irrelevant to me.

 

There can be however many genders you like. There are only two sexes. (male and female). As such, there are only two relevant genders. The rest are either mythical bollocks (like dragon kin) or paid DLC (trans surgery).

 

It's me telling you i'm not playing along. If you're a man, i'm calling you he. If you're a woman, i'm calling you she. If you've had the trans surgery, then i'll call you whichever one you transferred to. It's that simple.

 

 

You're hitting me with the "what discrimination"? Well, they have a far higher chance of being bullied to the point of killing themselves, 25% mentioned losing a job for refusing to confirm to gender norms, they're nearly four times as likely to be in poverty, and around 90% have said that they've experienced some sort of transgender-based discrimination. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/22/the-state-of-transgender-america-massive-discrimination-little-data/?utm_term=.a6f1af813b79

 

"You're too broke for a car" is a shitty comparison to make. They can afford it, this is in the direction of enacting policies that will unnecessarily make it far more costly to do something that solves their gender dysphoria. The comparison between health care coverage and the car is so garbage like. This is a really shitty argument. Would you argue that if a drug addict's premiums for care went off due to not being covered by healthcare they should "work for" being able to go to rehab? Should a suicidal person have to "work for" anti-depressants? Should someone who's dying from AIDS or diabetes need to "work for" their medication to live when they're rendered incredibly weak? Seriously?

 

I'm against any bullies that much is well agreed upon. If they refuse to fill out the form on a job application properly for the sake of breaking gender norms, then that's not the jobs fault. just register as your sex and get over it. Tell 25% of them to properly fill the job forms out and you'd solve a third of that issue. You can tell them to sue if they're being discriminated against and have even one trace of a case.

 

Place the trans condition in the mental health issues box where it belongs and you can fund the sex change medication all you like under the same conditions as mental health. Problem solved.

 

 

 

I mean sure but if you're hired by someone and they keep hitting you with the "hey fatass", "you giant piece of lard" "why don't you take off a few pounds, fatty" then hey, that should be counting as harassment right?

 

You call them by their name, sure, instead of fatass, retard, or ugly, other nouns that you could easily use to express both your disgust and make them feel like sheet. But, you don't do that because you're not an jabroni. 

 

I'm sorry I gotta do this but since Winter keeps referencing sheet that doesn't go down in California I straight up don't trust what you debate folk have to say about it, so I'm gonna need to hit you with the "SOURCE OR GTFO".

 

Yes, which gives them MORE scrutiny to be torn apart and discouraged and probably shat on instead of people picking on trans people which is something that is mental and is straight up not a choice. Unless you fellas are gonna take down all the sheet that's optional that murders you that the media pushes, I don't want to hear about someone doing something that prevents them from killing themselves out of hatred from their own body as "unhealthy".

 

Their "biological sex"? What're you doing just grabbing everyone by their junk the second you walk past them? I didn't know 45th had this much impact over the common conservative.

If you're calling yourself a skinny little fairy when you weigh 300 pound, it might be tempting.

 

...There's a lot to unpack there, i'm just not gonna touch it because it's not worth the trouble.

 

[spoiler=Both are possible, both have happened. and Californian laws do not yet prevent them from happening again.]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/06/transgender-person-accused-rape-remanded-female-prison-sexually/

Not cali, but the issue remains as much of a problem.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/canadian-man-legally-lists-gender-as-female-to-get-cheaper-car-insurance-report

boss as funk, and perfectly legit technique.

 

 

 

I don't pick on people for mental issues (at least not without reason). Nor do I attempt to police what people do with their lives. I simply tell them to not force their world views upon me. the law does the same. Luckily, at this point, the law now does the same. It steps entirely out of the gender debacle, and goes straight by sex. (it still bans discrimination based upon sex/gender, it just doesn't try to do anything more than that) 

 

Not playing that game. You know what i mean. If you're a guy, you're a guy. If you're a girl, you're a girl. If I can't tell, then your new name is Ruka and i'm cool with traps.

[Sunshine Jesse]

The rest are either mythical bollocks (like dragon kin) or paid DLC (trans surgery).

 

This is the worst funking DLC I've ever had to play.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is the worst funking DLC I've ever had to play.

Clearly you haven't dealt with loot boxes in battle front 2

Anyway trans people aren't going anywhere regardless of how this turns out

[Proto]

Clearly you haven't dealt with loot boxes in battle front 2

Anyway trans people aren't going anywhere regardless of how this turns out

Sure. And wheelchair-bound people aren't going anywhere if you get rid of all the slopes in the world and replace them with stairs, still doesn't mean that you should redact a law saying that wheelchair accessibility is important. You're making someone who's life is probably already sheet even more sheet for no discernible benefit.

 

 

I'm against any bullies that much is well agreed upon. If they refuse to fill out the form on a job application properly for the sake of breaking gender norms, then that's not the jobs fault. just register as your sex and get over it. Tell 25% of them to properly fill the job forms out and you'd solve a third of that issue. You can tell them to sue if they're being discriminated against and have even one trace of a case.

 

Place the trans condition in the mental health issues box where it belongs and you can fund the sex change medication all you like under the same conditions as mental health. Problem solved.

 

"Refusing to fill out a job application properly" is... not what that refers to at all? Hello? Unless it has to do with you medically I really don't see why your job should have to know whether you have a dick or not. Besides it's a two-way street, you file it as male, then you walk in as a female they'll be probably even more put off then before. It's a lose-lose that's solved far better by having a discrimination policy.

 

 

It already is in the mental health box because it's a condition, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

If you're calling yourself a skinny little fairy when you weigh 300 pound, it might be tempting.

 

...There's a lot to unpack there, i'm just not gonna touch it because it's not worth the trouble.

 

[spoiler=Both are possible, both have happened. and Californian laws do not yet prevent them from happening again.]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/06/transgender-person-accused-rape-remanded-female-prison-sexually/

Not cali, but the issue remains as much of a problem.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/canadian-man-legally-lists-gender-as-female-to-get-cheaper-car-insurance-report

boss as funk, and perfectly legit technique.

 

 

 

I don't pick on people for mental issues (at least not without reason). Nor do I attempt to police what people do with their lives. I simply tell them to not force their world views upon me. the law does the same. Luckily, at this point, the law now does the same. It steps entirely out of the gender debacle, and goes straight by sex. (it still bans discrimination based upon sex/gender, it just doesn't try to do anything more than that) 

 

Not playing that game. You know what i mean. If you're a guy, you're a guy. If you're a girl, you're a girl. If I can't tell, then your new name is Ruka and i'm cool with traps.

Alright then, but to a normal, average person you wouldn't do that. So why would you remind a trans person that they weren't born the gender they want to be when that's clearly a very big source of strife for them?

 

Passive aggressiveness, lovely.

 

I love how you hid these behind a spoiler to obscure the fact that not only are neither of these from the U.S. but none of them partake with the California law of needing a woman on the board or regarding that you can't misgender people in nursing homes whatsoever. It's a transwoman who raped someone in the UK being sent to a woman's prison and a Canadian man registering as a woman for cheaper health care. None of that has literally anything to do with any Californian policy.

 

Nobody's forcing you to do anything, there's literally no law against misgendering someone, it just makes you an jabroni and a bully to insult someone and remind them that they don't pass yet. The law also replaces gender with sex, so it literally doesn't defend on the rights to gender.

 

I don't know what you mean. Like, seriously I've had people confuse me for a girl before because I got long hair and I didn't have a beard at the moment. And I don't consider myself to be particularly androgynous either. Nobody is able to just smell your sex from a mile away, sure you can have traits that are representative of other people but there are plenty of broad shouldered, short-haired wide-framed women as much as there are slim, long-haired androgynous men. You don't call people by their sex unless you literally start grabbing people by their genitals or you're a doctor looking over patients, and that's an objective fact.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://twitter.com/GallupNews/status/999019587697078272/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E999019587697078272

 

 

Might tamp down on transtrending

If you are correct that trans has always existed you should see common trends among all the age groups...but you don't. Instead you only see with the insane generation. Hmm

Granted this is all LGBT people, so it's not a perfect measure 

Also gag, I'm narrowly a millennial according this...how awful to be associated with that lot