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

[Proto]

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

You made the claim that trans people have always existed. I simply always post based on your assumptions because that's the benefit of the doubt and we'd be here all day if I argued every bit of your conversations. Hell, I never stated on the "trend" at all until you started out saying:

 

 

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. 

 

 

Damn son you debunked yourself. Round of applause.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

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

Reads this, thinks I'm implying trans people don't exist. Hey Einstein, all of those lines are >0

 

Guess what that means? That trans people exist! Radical

[Proto]

Reads this, thinks I'm implying trans people don't exist. Hey Einstein, all of those lines are >0

 

Guess what that means? That trans people exist! Radical

Quote where I said that you think trans people don't exist.

 

Seriously Mel? I'm starting to think that you're illiterate at this point. You really think that I'm saying things that I'm not. You use sources that don't support your claims at all. All in all I'm starting to think you mental might be more wonked then the "ess jay dubbyas" that you criticize!

[vla1ne]

"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.

 

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.

"25% mentioned losing a job for refusing to confirm to gender norms,"

What else are we calling it then? Your statement was they refused to conform to gender norms. my assumption is they either refused to fill out the select few boxes relating to sex, or they filled them out with something that showed exactly what they'd have to deal with were they to hire said person.

 

 

Why would they drop it because of this again? As something that's already a mental condition, why would using sex instead of gender be hazardous to insurance again?

 

Because if they keep telling me with to call them something they aren't, i'm going to eventually call them what they are. I'm willing to ignore it for the sake of politeness. no point disrespecting people who don't come at me with demands or disrespect.

 

i could have gone full aggro, too much trouble to unravel all the snares though, so i walked past it.

 

I said it up front did i not? Neither happened in cali, both are just as possible in cali. neither are impossible, in fact, the way cali is progressing right now, it's increasingly likely. Need cheaper insurance? Legally identify as a woman and get it on the low. Need a woman on the board? Get a guy to identify as a woman, problem solved. misgendering people in nursing homes is it's own level of a laughable law.

 

 " there's literally no law against misgendering someone"

"you can't misgender people in nursing homes whatsoever"  Trans falls into the mental health bucket. You said it yourself. Sexual preference is protected, so LGB are all in the clear, what's left?

 

Your new name is ruka. Congrats, you're a trap.

[Susie]

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

You do realize that rise with millenials could very well be because people of today are more aware of trans/non-binary identities? I dont see how older generations not having as much LBGT in recent history is relevant to anything. Older people in general tend to not be too aware of things that millenials are more aware of.

[Proto]

"25% mentioned losing a job for refusing to confirm to gender norms,"

What else are we calling it then? Your statement was they refused to conform to gender norms. my assumption is they either refused to fill out the select few boxes relating to sex, or they filled them out with something that showed exactly what they'd have to deal with were they to hire said person.

 

 

Why would they drop it because of this again? As something that's already a mental condition, why would using sex instead of gender be hazardous to insurance again?

 

Because if they keep telling me with to call them something they aren't, i'm going to eventually call them what they are. I'm willing to ignore it for the sake of politeness. no point disrespecting people who don't come at me with demands or disrespect.

 

i could have gone full aggro, too much trouble to unravel all the snares though, so i walked past it.

 

I said it up front did i not? Neither happened in cali, both are just as possible in cali. neither are impossible, in fact, the way cali is progressing right now, it's increasingly likely. Need cheaper insurance? Legally identify as a woman and get it on the low. Need a woman on the board? Get a guy to identify as a woman, problem solved. misgendering people in nursing homes is it's own level of a laughable law.

 

 " there's literally no law against misgendering someone"

"you can't misgender people in nursing homes whatsoever"  Trans falls into the mental health bucket. You said it yourself. Sexual preference is protected, so LGB are all in the clear, what's left?

 

Your new name is ruka. Congrats, you're a trap.

That statement could very easily refer to things besides simply filling out a form, it could be coming out of trans in the middle of having a job or starting to dress as the gender that they feel they are. Which would count as not conforming to gender norms. 

 

Alright, clarification because you're... even less informed then I thought. Gender dysphoria itself is a recognized mental condition. But when it's treated (guess what, by becoming what you aspire to be, or changing your gender) via letting people be the gender that they feel the negative effects tend to be stifled (depends on the trans person as always). As thus because this is well, the only thing wrong with them labeling all trans people as mental is kinda funked. So they're in it before they get treatment and after that they're cool. 

 

Why would they need to correct you if you start out calling them what they identify as? There isn't an "eventually" here like you're forced to take action by calling a woman a man, you're being the aggressor via not respecting someone's wishes. It's like you calling someone a nickname they don't like, (like you calling me Ruka) and them telling you to stop repeatedly... Then you using that as an excuse to keep on doing it. That's bully sheet.

 

I don't care about what "aggro" looks from you.

 

You said it upfront that they weren't from Cali but we're talking about America, with these laws in place these situations straight up have not happened with trans people, so why are we repealing them? And now you're going into a straight fantasy land because you're afraid of California. I can't deal with fantasy.

 

Allow me to clarify for the pedants "Unless you happen to be someone who is under legal care of someone AND are not their actual parents, there is no law against you misgendering people." There, still works. And I explained the gender dysphoria bit up above.

 

Don't call me that. 

 

 

[Phantom Roxas]

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.

 

It's the same thing as the problem with your grammar; you act as if respecting people requires some great effort on your part, and you don't "feel" like dealing with it. It truly does make it sound like it's a burden on you. Respecting what people decide for themselves is really not that hard, and it is recognized as an act of discrimination. What you see as "not playing along" is legitimately recognized as a form of discrimination.

 

Although I will give you credit; comparing sex reassignment surgery to "DLC" is easily a front-runner for the stupidest analogy that I have ever seen.

[vla1ne]

That statement could very easily refer to things besides simply filling out a form, it could be coming out of trans in the middle of having a job or starting to dress as the gender that they feel they are. Which would count as not conforming to gender norms. 

 

Alright, clarification because you're... even less informed then I thought. Gender dysphoria itself is a recognized mental condition. But when it's treated (guess what, by becoming what you aspire to be, or changing your gender) via letting people be the gender that they feel the negative effects tend to be stifled (depends on the trans person as always). As thus because this is well, the only thing wrong with them labeling all trans people as mental is kinda funked. So they're in it before they get treatment and after that they're cool. 

 

Why would they need to correct you if you start out calling them what they identify as? There isn't an "eventually" here like you're forced to take action by calling a woman a man, you're being the aggressor via not respecting someone's wishes. It's like you calling someone a nickname they don't like, (like you calling me Ruka) and them telling you to stop repeatedly... Then you using that as an excuse to keep on doing it. That's bully sheet.

 

I don't care about what "aggro" looks from you.

 

You said it upfront that they weren't from Cali but we're talking about America, with these laws in place these situations straight up have not happened with trans people, so why are we repealing them? And now you're going into a straight fantasy land because you're afraid of California. I can't deal with fantasy.

 

Allow me to clarify for the pedants "Unless you happen to be someone who is under legal care of someone AND are not their actual parents, there is no law against you misgendering people." There, still works. And I explained the gender dysphoria bit up above.

 

Don't call me that.

Firing you just because you're trans is something you can sue over. If it cuts into the bottom line of the company though, then problems will indeed arise. If it doesn't, then it likely won't be an issue. More info on those people is needed before i affirm or deny their claims in those cases.

 

 

You've stated nothing that changes due to the parameters of existing (or soon to exist) insurance or laws. You can still identify and transfer to the gender you want to. The government simply goes by the XX, XY chromosome definition, which leaves less room for error. It has nothing to do with standard mental health insurance. Yeah, they are all mental. If you have two X chromosomes and strongly believe you're an XY, something's likely not wired proper. That doesn't make them any worse or any less than other people. it just means they've got a mental condition. most of us have them.

 

....

 

"Both are just as possible in cali. neither are impossible, in fact, the way cali is progressing right now, it's increasingly likely." Can you change your legal gender in america? Yes? Then are there any places where you can get advantages for doing so? Like say, entering a sports category that's dominated by the weaker gender? Or taking advantage of a scholarship that's intended for the opposite sex? Or using the bathroom of the opposite sex using gender loopholes (say... in a nursing home?). Or filling the gender quota with trans women? If you can still do all that, the point stands.

 

So that "literally" had a pretty large "but" to it huh? well i suppose that "unless" also includes the new york law that can fine you over 50K for refusing to play along as well huh?

 

 

[spoiler=....]

Tis a simple joke nothing more.

 

 

 

It's the same thing as the problem with your grammar; you act as if respecting people requires some great effort on your part, and you don't "feel" like dealing with it. It truly does make it sound like it's a burden on you. Respecting what people decide for themselves is really not that hard, and it is recognized as an act of discrimination. What you see as "not playing along" is legitimately recognized as a form of discrimination.

It's very simple. my answer to the question of a preferred pronoun is no. If i don't feel like calling you something, i'm simply not going to call you it. When there can be dozens of "preferred" pronouns, i'm going to cut through the bullshit and call you he or she. I like to keep it simple and adress people by their sex. Don't like it? Tell me your name (aka the most useful noun available) and i'll call you that. Simple. I don't have to respect it, and using the law to make somebody call you something is magnitudes worse than them not calling you a pronoun.

[Proto]

firing you just because you're trans is something you can sue over. If it cuts into the bottom line of the company though, then problems will indeed arise. If it doesn't, then it likely won't be an issue. more info on those people is needed before i affirm or deny their claims in those cases.

 

 

you've stated nothing that changes due to the parameters of existing insurance or laws. you can still identify and transfer to the gender you want to. The government simply goes by the XX, XY chromosome definition, which leaves less room for error. has nothing to do with standard mental health insurance. And yeah, they are all mental. If you have two X chromosomes and strongly believe you're an XY, something's likely not wired proper. That doesn't make them any worse or any less than other people. it just means they've got a mental condition. most of us have them.

 

....

 

"both are just as possible in cali. neither are impossible, in fact, the way cali is progressing right now, it's increasingly likely." Can you change your legal gender in america? Yes? Then are there any places where you can get advantages for doing so? Like say, entering a sports category that's dominated by the weaker gender? Or taking advantage of a scholarship that's intended for the opposite sex? or using the bathroom of the opposite sex using gender loopholes (say... in a nursing home?). Or filling the gender quota with trans women? if you can still do all that, the point stands.

 

So that "literally" had a pretty large "but" to it huh? well i suppose that "unless" also includes the new york law that can fine you over 50K for refusing to play along as well huh?

 

 

Yes, you can sue over it now and the courts have ruled in favor of the trans person winning in the past. However, with the change to sex it leaves it in a dubious state on whether you can do that or no. What Trump is doing now is effectively opening the gates for someone to rule "oh i didn't actually discriminate against your SEX here." He's creating a potential loophole for no reason.

 

It doesn't go outside of the "existing" insurance and laws because guess what, Trump's proposition is literally not in place yet. You already agreed with me that health care could easily adjust to not covering transition procedures. It doesn't leave less room for error because SEX is already a category in most medical/biology related activities. Every trans person has to put down their original born sex when they participate in activities like that already so I don't see what removing gender actually accomplishes besides making them opt for a likely exploitative "new" health care and the potential for discrimination being increased against him.

 

Sports is determined by sex already. This is for practical reasons and no person is against that. Anything else that does not involve a person's actual biology to be in effect should not have a sex-based limiter on it. 

 

We were talking specifically about California and that "Unless" is literally specific as funk and is likely something you will never experience because I doubt you're ever going to be a nursing home worker in California. Either way, since you're bringing New York into it, lets go. Cite the law and I'll look through it. I bet you anything it doesn't cover people on the street or a casual person misgendering people. 

 

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You do realize that rise with millenials could very well be because people of today are more aware of trans/non-binary identities? I dont see how older generations not having as much LBGT in recent history is relevant to anything. Older people in general tend to not be too aware of things that millenials are more aware of.

I've always maintained that everyone is to some degree Bi, it's statistically unlikely there is NOBODY of the same gender (or opposite for the sticks who insist they're perfectly gay) that might be attractive to you. But are those mutually exclusive? Transtrending or LGBTrending in general is that we've created a society where it is not only tolerated but encouraged to be err, LGBT, it's become somewhat of a hip thing these days. Now as bi guy, I have 0 problem with homosexual relationships, but not sure sex (straight or not) should be glorified. You can both be more aware, but also have something glorified to the point where even people who lean straight suddenly wanna try things.

 

Somewhat of a tangent.

 

As I mentioned it could be a flawed standard since it's possible (though unlikely) that the growth is entirely from LGB people and none from trans. 

[Phantom Roxas]

It's very simple. my answer to the question of a preferred pronoun is no. If i don't feel like calling you something, i'm simply not going to call you it. When there can be dozens of "preferred" pronouns, i'm going to cut through the bullshit and call you he or she. I like to keep it simple and adress people by their sex. Don't like it? Tell me your name (aka the most useful noun available) and i'll call you that. Simple. I don't have to respect it, and using the law to make somebody call you something is magnitudes worse than them not calling you a pronoun.

I have no idea how respecting people's wishes is "bullshit" just because you "don't feel like dealing with it." Your emotional whims do not make anything simple. You're asking people to deal with your own feelings while you say you shouldn't have to deal with anyone else's.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Quote where I said that you think trans people don't exist.

 

Seriously Mel? I'm starting to think that you're illiterate at this point. You really think that I'm saying things that I'm not. You use sources that don't support your claims at all. All in all I'm starting to think you mental might be more wonked then the "ess jay dubbyas" that you criticize!

Err well you quoted me saying that I do think trans people exist, and then quote me again and claim it debunked that view. One of us is clearly misunderstanding the other, and I'm just tryna set the record straight ^_^

I have no idea how respecting people's wishes is "bullshit" just because you "don't feel like dealing with it." Your emotional whims do not make anything simple. You're asking people to deal with your own feelings while you say you shouldn't have to deal with anyone else's.

You shouldn't be able to force speech on someone to moderate to your emotions. Loyalists found it offensive when people critiqued the king, should the founding fathers have stopped being critical of England for feelz? 

[Proto]

Err well you quoted me saying that I do think trans people exist, and then quote me again and claim it debunked that view. One of us is clearly misunderstanding the other, and I'm just tryna set the record straight ^_^

Nah, I quoted you saying that you think that trans people always existed. Which, you then debunked by saying that I originally propositioned by linking the LGBT thing and claiming that its really transtrenders that are on the rise or something I don't know what your point in doing that was.

 

I'm not trying to prove what you're thinking one way or the other, I'm proving that you're contradictory, and stupid.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trans people can have always existed and transtrending can be a thing.

 

 

I'll let you figure out how that great paradox works oh smart one

[Proto]

Never claimed that wasn't true. I think it's an issue personally. You did:

 

 

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

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Never claimed that wasn't true. I think it's an issue personally. You did:

Proto, I don't wanna call you dumb, but you're acting like it.

 

None of those lines are at 0%

 

ie, trannies always existed (or rather LGBT always existed). What we do see is an unequal growth trend. In stats we can use this as a post-pre period suggesting a casual effect. Which in this case might be trans trending. A natural occurring enlightenment would see similar upticks in the generation most close to us, the Gen X group. That did not happen. 

 

I get that my phrasing there does seem a little off however. 

[Proto]

So, I'm dumb because you misspoke and didn't own up to it and didn't realize your error until I quoting it multiple times?
 

I'm literally not arguing with you, I agree with what you said, it's just the way you said it implied that you somehow think that trans people didn't exist until a certain time period. And you've kind of been known to backtrack after saying big outstanding things that you really don't believe at the beginning of debates which is  why I try to hold you to sources so I understand what you really believe.

 

But then you end up being bad at reading sources as well. I don't think you've linked a single one that actually supports your argument. I constantly have to restate them for you and you even need to correct them yourself.

 

So that leads to one of three things since you at the very least are politically active enough to keep up with news. Either:

 

1. You're illiterate/stupid. The most generous of your personal character so I assume this.

2. You paraphrase things that you see on twitter word for word and don't actually factcheck them at all before regurgitating them wholesale onto here. This is shitty behavior, but not inherently evil.

3. You actively lie to support your ideologies. This is evil.

[Phantom Roxas]

You shouldn't be able to force speech on someone to moderate to your emotions. Loyalists found it offensive when people critiqued the king, should the founding fathers have stopped being critical of England for feelz? 

 

I get that, and my issue is that vla1ne is doing the exact same thing he's critiquing; people need to manage their speech to accommodate his personal feelings, or lack thereof, because what he feels is supposedly the "simpler" option. He styles himself as "cutting through the bullshit", which assumes that his apathy is somehow based in the truth.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I get that, and my issue is that vla1ne is doing the exact same thing he's critiquing; people need to manage their speech to accommodate his personal feelings, or lack thereof, because what he feels is supposedly the "simpler" option. He styles himself as "cutting through the bullshit", which assumes that his apathy is somehow based in the truth.

Well no, like I can't fully speak for val1ne, but both him and I so far don't really care about Proto's ad hom for example. It just comes with the territory and you're better off just not letting it get under your skin. Val1ne, as far as I saw, didn't say people can't not say they're trans? Did he?

So, I'm dumb because you misspoke and didn't own up to it and didn't realize your error until I quoting it multiple times?

 

I'm literally not arguing with you, I agree with what you said, it's just the way you said it implied that you somehow think that trans people didn't exist until a certain time period. And you've kind of been known to backtrack after saying big outstanding things that you really don't believe at the beginning of debates which is  why I try to hold you to sources so I understand what you really believe.

 

But then you end up being bad at reading sources as well. I don't think you've linked a single one that actually supports your argument. I constantly have to restate them for you and you even need to correct them yourself.

 

So that leads to one of three things since you at the very least are politically active enough to keep up with news. Either:

 

1. You're illiterate/stupid. The most generous of your personal character so I assume this.

2. You paraphrase things that you see on twitter word for word and don't actually factcheck them at all before regurgitating them wholesale onto here. This is shitty behavior, but not inherently evil.

3. You actively lie to support your ideologies. This is evil.

 

No you're being dumb because I literally explained my point about levels not being at zero even before the post above where I had to spell it out like to a 5 year old. It's pretty clear I was talking about the millennial generation, but I'll not mock your inability to read context clues.

 

You do you though

[Phantom Roxas]

Well no, like I can't fully speak for val1ne, but both him and I so far don't really care about Proto's ad hom for example. It just comes with the territory and you're better off just not letting it get under your skin. Val1ne, as far as I saw, didn't say people can't not say they're trans? Did he?

 

Proto's ad hom is certainly out of line, but I think that you and vla1ne are having your own discussion with Proto, which I'd rather not involve myself in, so I've been limiting my responses solely to what vla1ne has been saying to me. As you said, it is better not letting vla1ne's comments getting under my skin.

 

vla1ne didn't go so far as to say that people can't (Or can't not? Not sure if that double negative was intentional or a typo, but I think my point will be consistent regardless) say they're trans, so much as even if they do state that they're transgender or whatever their preferred pronouns will be, he'll just "cut through the bullshit and call them he or she", which to me is more that he's disregarding their statements and presenting himself as speaking more closely to the truth than they are. It just seems rather... arrogant, for lack of a better word.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Proto's ad hom is certainly out of line, but I think that you and vla1ne are having your own discussion with Proto, which I'd rather not involve myself in, so I've been limiting my responses solely to what vla1ne has been saying to me. As you said, it is better not letting vla1ne's comments getting under my skin.

 

vla1ne didn't go so far as to say that people can't (Or can't not? Not sure if that double negative was intentional or a typo, but I think my point will be consistent regardless) say they're trans, so much as even if they do state that they're transgender or whatever their preferred pronouns will be, he'll just "cut through the bullshit and call them he or she", which to me is more that he's disregarding their statements and presenting himself as speaking more closely to the truth than they are. It just seems rather... arrogant, for lack of a better word.

Autocorrect sorry. My confusion is maybe Vla1ne doesn't use the preferred pro-noun. Isn't it possible the took their view into account but decided it didn't cross the threshold of changing his behavior?

 

Like I'm a passionate vegetarian who finds killing animals disgraceful. My parents understand that, but they're not going to change how they live their life based on my emotions? You can understand and not

be swayed

 

My problem is entirely different. Transgenderism is real & tragic and awful for the individual. I'm not keen on the glorification of an illness.

[Proto]

I mean, present an argument properly and I'll address it properly. All you've talked about is other (wrong) sources and your own personal opinions. So what is there left to attack when you can't even muster up a coherent argument yet you continue to keep swingin' into the battlefield like you know something? I can't dismiss you because doing so allows ignorance to reign supreme, so I have to attack what's given to me and give my opinions on them. You've given me garbage and I'm addressing that it's garbage. 

 

I've had to correct you on wrong assumptions 4-5 times via just asking you to cough up whatever source you have. Do you know how frustrating it is to read someone's post or even imagine yourself on someone's even intellectual level when you can't even trust what they're saying as true and you have to look it up yourself or even parse through the article on your own time just because you're so sure that your opponent funked up? It makes me feel like I'm dealing with a child. So for all intents and purposes I treat you like one. When you make mistakes I assume its genuine and because you're ill informed and not that I should somehow expect anything smarter from you.

 

Like this:

 

 

My problem is entirely different. Transgenderism is real & tragic and awful for the individual. I'm not keen on the glorification of an illness.

How does potentially endangering someone's right to health care and opening up loopholes in discrimination helping in the "de-glorification" of an illness? If anything it'll lead to an incredible amount of pushback against this sort of thing, people can (and have) already taken this as a threat and proof that we haven't been good enough for trans people. Simply leaving the bill as it is would've done nothing, doing this makes the situation not only look bad for Trump but makes the trans community and potential allies more militant in that they need to show more and more that they exist. 

Your position on this is nonsensical.

 

tl;dr: funking think twice before posting and make sure it's verifiable if you want me to respect you and not ad hom you because when you make false claims or give me faulty sources it makes me think you don't know what you're talking about. And thus, I assume the worst from you.

[vla1ne]

I have no idea how respecting people's wishes is "bullshit" just because you "don't feel like dealing with it." Your emotional whims do not make anything simple. You're asking people to deal with your own feelings while you say you shouldn't have to deal with anyone else's.

Winter said it rather well. I do not care what you call yourself. I am fine with whatever you want to call yourself. It is only when you try to make me call you that, that i will tell you no. I am not obligated to deal with anybody else's feelings, nor are they obliged to deal with mine. End of story.

 

Yes, you can sue over it now and the courts have ruled in favor of the trans person winning in the past. However, with the change to sex it leaves it in a dubious state on whether you can do that or no. What Trump is doing now is effectively opening the gates for someone to rule "oh i didn't actually discriminate against your SEX here." He's creating a potential loophole for no reason.

 

It doesn't go outside of the "existing" insurance and laws because guess what, Trump's proposition is literally not in place yet. You already agreed with me that health care could easily adjust to not covering transition procedures. It doesn't leave less room for error because SEX is already a category in most medical/biology related activities. Every trans person has to put down their original born sex when they participate in activities like that already so I don't see what removing gender actually accomplishes besides making them opt for a likely exploitative "new" health care and the potential for discrimination being increased against him.

 

Sports is determined by sex already. This is for practical reasons and no person is against that. Anything else that does not involve a person's actual biology to be in effect should not have a sex-based limiter on it. 

 

We were talking specifically about California and that "Unless" is literally specific as funk and is likely something you will never experience because I doubt you're ever going to be a nursing home worker in California. Either way, since you're bringing New York into it, lets go. Cite the law and I'll look through it. I bet you anything it doesn't cover people on the street or a casual person misgendering people. 

 

 

What about actively discriminating against trans people is not able to be sued? Being a dick is legal, but actually being a bigot and discriminating against people for something like being trans is not. What trump is doing, does not change that, he's not repealing amendments, he's just saying Sex is the standard we go by. when you classify trans under mental condition, it still remains a protected class.

 

It removes the gender category as a whole, and with the way the word gender is headed (genderfluid, gender queer, gender binary, ect) that avoids a hell of a lot of future hassle. You're using discrimination like everybody and their mother is waiting to kick trans people off their healthcare plan. That's not the case. If it becomes the case post change, I'll retract that statement, but i have yet to see people doing it, or actually planning to do it. because the lawsuits alone (not to mention the edge it would give any competitors who don't) would destroy them outright. We'll see down the line where that goes though.

 

Not anymore. look up trans competitors in running, MMA, and various other ones that are attempting it elsewhere. They're attempting to get into opposite sex sports, and some actually have (many at the high school/college level). With the same exact results you'd expect.

 

 

It is somewhat relevant considering the place i work in, is actually in a retirement home.in new york state. I've got years of experience in residential settings and legal restrictions (had to sit through every damn meeting for the past 5 years, by now, i know my sheet on this front) I can tell you with full confidence that the california law will cause nothing but new problems. Everything the law addresses, aside from whether or not trans residents can uses different bathrooms, is already covered under existing law. It only adds more red tape to a field covered in red tape already. Neglect laws, abuse laws, confidentiality agreements, training sessions, the potential for families to call the state/sue the company, ect, all of those cover everything in the law already.

 

As for new york, you do not get it. it is not that the law ignores passerby on the street, it is that the law attempts to control speech. If i don't want to call you ze/zir i should not have to, that's my choice. The new york law, forces exactly that, and that is the exact thing i'm against. It applies to workplaces, public facilities, and other such areas. (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/) Neither the state, nor the federal government, has any right to tell me what i can and cannot call you. end of story. and everything serious that you can get in trouble for, is already covered under existing laws.

[Phantom Roxas]

Autocorrect sorry. My confusion is maybe Vla1ne doesn't use the preferred pro-noun. Isn't it possible the took their view into account but decided it didn't cross the threshold of changing his behavior?

 

Like I'm a passionate vegetarian who finds killing animals disgraceful. My parents understand that, but they're not going to change how they live their life based on my emotions? You can understand and not

be swayed

 

My problem is entirely different. Transgenderism is real & tragic and awful for the individual. I'm not keen on the glorification of an illness.

 

"Cross the threshold of changing his behavior" Okay, statements like that are why I say that he's making this sound like a burden. "I identity as this gender and would prefer to be addressed as such" really does not need to cross some arbitrary "threshold", and the issue there would be that such a threshold even exists in the first place, not that someone wants to be addressed a certain way.

 

Being a vegetarian is barely similar to being transgender, so try more than a false equivalence.

 

Well, it's a good thing that being transgender is not an illness, so thankfully there's no illness to glorify.

 

Winter said it rather well. I do not care what you call yourself. I am fine with whatever you want to call yourself. It is only when you try to make me call you that, that i will tell you no. I am not obligated to deal with anybody else's feelings, nor are they obliged to deal with mine. End of story.

 

Nothing you have said suggests you're fine with what people call themselves. You called their preferences bullshit, position yourself as more correct, and when you tell them "No", you are presenting your disagreement with their gender identity as though you were speaking fact. That is exactly what it means to obligate people to deal with your feelings. If you didn't care, you wouldn't insist on "correcting" them and telling them "No, I'm going to call you this." You want them to just deal with you outright ignoring their preferences. How does that make you in any way better than them?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

"Cross the threshold of changing his behavior" Okay, statements like that are why I say that he's making this sound like a burden. "I identity as this gender and would prefer to be addressed as such" really does not need to cross some arbitrary "threshold", and the issue there would be that such a threshold even exists in the first place, not that someone wants to be addressed a certain way.

 

Being a vegetarian is barely similar to being transgender, so try more than a false equivalence.

 

Well, it's a good thing that being transgender is not an illness, so thankfully there's no illness to glorify.

 

 

Nothing you have said suggests you're fine with what people call themselves. You called their preferences bullshit, position yourself as more correct, and when you tell them "No", you are presenting your disagreement with their gender identity as though you were speaking fact. That is exactly what it means to obligate people to deal with your feelings. If you didn't care, you wouldn't insist on "correcting" them and telling them "No, I'm going to call you this." You want them to just deal with you outright ignoring their preferences. How does that make you in any way better than them?

Well it is a burden? Unless you're implying the only think that's painful to trans people is being called the wrong gender. And it's a burden on everyone else because we have to ignore our sensory information to falsely validate your emotions.

 

Being a tranny is an illness. Till the SJWs got a hold of it, even the DSM (which was always printed by a left leaning organization) found it to be so.

 

I mean there are thousands of other personal decisions one can choose, a different religion might be more emotionally charged for example. Hell you're downplaying my food preferences, don't you care about my emotions roxas? The simple answer is my views on the matter didn't meet your threshold for caring about them. Which is 100% fine.

Long deviating shitpost

I really couldn't care less about you, what you have to say about me, or what you think about me. I was using you as an example of a troll that people just shouldn't get worked up about.