Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Shit. Now I agree with Trump!

117 replies

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 21/10/2018 13:15

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

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.

A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of sex in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing sex largely as an individual’s choice — and prompting fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.

Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.

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.

OP posts:
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 21/10/2018 14:56

Ironically they need a third space which is sex segregated...

OP posts:
ohello · 21/10/2018 15:07

NeedMoreSleep I keep trying to tell my liberal friends that transgenderism is going to destroy them at the voting booth, but they just shrug. Liberals honestly believe that women are such good little obedient girls that we would vote ourselves out of existence.

I am poor, I am working class. It's bad enough being poor, it would be even worse to be BOTH poor AND be some weirdo's fetish prop. Middleclass people have NO idea what revolting assholes working class autogynphiles can be.

ohello · 21/10/2018 15:09

forgot to mention I was a registered democrat all my life! Don't care, I simply cannot deal with random penises in my shower cubicle.

Freespeecher · 21/10/2018 15:09

Something to be said for a Trumpian approach here.

'Transwomen are women'.

'WRONG' (accompanied by the usual downward pointing gesture).

Vixxxy · 21/10/2018 15:41

Makes me feel dodgy when I agree with Trump on something. Actually makes me question myself a bit, but then I remember a stopped clock is right twice a day.

VickyEadie · 21/10/2018 15:46

A third space puts transmen in with transwomen.

Why aren't the transmen going in with the men already?

I know it's controversial given that they're women, but it's a valid question.

Needmoresleep · 21/10/2018 15:51

ohello, I get you.

Over the past few years I have been increasingly concerned about the lack of understanding left wing elites have for their traditional supporters. My Fb feed has lots and lots of anti-Brexit and anti-Trump stuff, but next to nothing about how divided our societies are, and how hard life is for so many. And those who voted for Brexit were "racist", "stupid" or worse. I even went as far as pointing out a long standing friend that posting articles that referred to "stupid white working class women" voting Brexit was beyond unacceptable, especially from the advantage of her inherited wealth, but she did not get it. (I still can't believe she did it, and though I don't have a strong view on Brexit myself, can't forgive her.)

I know someone, now in her late 50s who was horribly abused as a child - pimped out by her mother. She has followed the Rotherham, and similar abuse scandals doggedly, which though triggering seem to have given her a level of peace. She is ready to march for Tommy Robinson. I would only be able to argue against if I felt that the politicans running Rotherham, Telford, Huddersfield etc were genuinely shocked and determined to ensure that nothing like this ever happened again. (Telford Labour's woman's officer?!)

I know this person would be roundly condemned by the woke folk I know, as Trump supporters might be in the States.

There is a need political elites to look in the mirror. If politicians throw girls and vulnerable women under the bus, they won't get our votes. Ditto with those struggling on the wrong side of the income divide.

The right of women to be defined by sex, and where appropriate be protected, is not a party issue. If Labour and the Democrats can't speak out, they cannot complain if others do.

Vixxxy · 21/10/2018 16:15

Why aren't the transmen going in with the men already?

For the same reason women don't want men in womens areas. Transmen who do not pass are not safe in the mens. They know it, we know it. Mixing men and women is a bad idea. Transmen who pass may feel ok in the mens, thats up to them

QuietContraryMary · 21/10/2018 16:18

This story is, as Trump would say, FAKE NEWS.

The facts are these:

  • Title IX was a Bill with bipartisan support passed in 1972 to protect women from discrimination in education, including school sports, and all other federally-funded programs, on the grounds of SEX
  • Some shit-for-brains woke fools in the Obama administration decided to unilaterally redefine 'sex' as meaning gender, which would therefore discriminate AGAINST those of the female sex in favour of those of the male sex under transgender identity. This was done without public consultation or legislation passed by elected officials, it was done simply by executive order.
  • Trump rightly repealed this nonsensical dictat and is replacing it with one that complies with the intent of the members of Congress in 1972.

However this under FAKE NEWS is described as ' Defining Transgender Out of Existence'.

Clearly it's not. It's merely cancelling the 'Defining Sex Out of Existence'.

All I can say is fuck the people who think this kind of journalism is acceptable. It's no wonder the culture war has intensified.

Needmoresleep · 21/10/2018 16:21

Mary, how come then that the US sports associations are issuing guidance effectively saying boys are girls is they believe they are. Swimming is the latest.

QuietContraryMary · 21/10/2018 16:26

Needmoresleep, no idea, but it has no connection to the bullshit story here, which only relates to Title IX (federally funded services).

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 21/10/2018 16:36
  • Trump rightly repealed this nonsensical dictat and is replacing it with one that complies with the intent of the members of Congress in 1972.

So has it all ready gone through then?

OP posts:
Vegilante · 21/10/2018 17:29

The way the NYTimes reported this story is extremely misleading & dishonest. The headline - "Trump administration eyes defining transgender out of existence" - sounds like TRAs' standard gripe that anyone who disagrees with their views or won't accede to all their demands is denying that they exist &/or saying they have no right to exist.

But, in fact, Trump nor anyone else in the federal government can "define transgender out of existence" because in the USA (where I am) most of the laws & regulations that define & pertain to transgender people are decided at the local & state levels.

In the NYT's own hometown, New York City, transgender & GNC people not only have a legally-established right to exist - they now have the right to birth certificates stating they are the sex/gender they think & say they are. In 2014, NYC passed a law that removed the requirements of surgery & legal name-change for NYC-born transgender people who wish to change their birth certificates from female to male or male to female. Last week, this was expanded so that now those born in NYC can change the sex on their birth certificates to "X" as well, again without legal name-change or surgery.

What's more, in 2016, NYC passed an appalling new law making it a civil offense, punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, for landlords or businesses to intentionally or repeatedly misgender trans tenants or customers.

So contrary to what the NYTimes says, transgender people in the USA aren't being "defined out of existence" by Trump or anyone else. In the paper's own hometown (& mine), transgender people's rights are rock solid. And in NYC, trans people at this point in time also have an extra right that no one else in the country has - the right to demand how others speak to & about them. (I say "at this point in time" because eventually the new NYC misgendering law will go to court; & there it will almost surely be found contrary to the First Amendment & thus thrown out as illegal.)

More about the situation in the USA that this NYTimes piece dishonestly portrays in another post...

Freespeecher · 21/10/2018 17:37

It's a two part plan of course. Part two is that the Democrats will now oppose him on this policy. Just before the midterms.

Honestly, can no-one in politics spot a tiger trap any more?

deepwatersolo · 21/10/2018 17:42

The whole ‚right to exist‘ narrative so rubs me the wrong way. Not having the right to exist surely means being rounded up and executed, like gays are in Saudi Arabia or Jews being shipped to termination camps in Nazi Germany - but not having no gender marker or the wrong gender marker in one‘s documents. Not saying that a gender marker at odds with your appearance can‘t be difficult in daily life. But, I mean, it is still a far cry from not having the right to exist.

terryleather · 21/10/2018 17:42

I don't know what he was thinking and I did generally like Obama.

Obama's campaigns had huge funding from both billionaire Jon Stryker and the Pritzker family so in his case it's very much follow the money....

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 21/10/2018 17:46

*It's a two part plan of course. Part two is that the Democrats will now oppose him on this policy. Just before the midterms.

Honestly, can no-one in politics spot a tiger trap any more?*

Ok I am a bit slow/ignorant so can you clarify? Do you mean the Democrats opposing this will be sucked into making lots of pro trans statements that the electorate don't like and thus do worse in the midterms?

Freespeecher · 21/10/2018 17:47

deepwatersolo
This is why so many people are now finding themselves on the wrong side of histrionics.

deepwatersolo · 21/10/2018 17:48

Freespeecher the Democrats will happily and willingly take the chance. They need something to rally around, and you bet they won‘t take Trump on on his belligerent foreign policy or his ways to further enrich the rich - cause that would cost the Dems their donors. So the trans issue it will be. For Pelosi and Shumer losing the midterms but keeping the donors is way more lucrative than winning the midterms by championing policies that lose them the donors.
Forward into the abyss!

Freespeecher · 21/10/2018 17:49

Countess

I reckon he's using it to dictate the battleground - easy to portray the Dems as out of touch with the common (wo)man when they're focusing on bathrooms when he's focusing on jobs etc etc.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 21/10/2018 17:50

Thanks Freespeecher. Makes sense.

Needmoresleep · 21/10/2018 17:50

What's more, in 2016, NYC passed an appalling new law making it a civil offense, punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, for landlords or businesses to intentionally or repeatedly misgender trans tenants or customers.

So rich men with access to good lawyers can bully the ‘little people’.

(Which is not meant to be anti diversity, but simply noting that one section of the population are weaponised, as we have seen here with various ‘hate’ complaints.)

Freespeecher · 21/10/2018 17:53

Maybe it'll be good in the long run. Perhaps it takes a midterm meltdown to realise that if you go woke you go electorally broke.

Anyway, we'll see I suppose.

deepwatersolo · 21/10/2018 17:57

You know, when you are unable to learn from 2016 (which they are), which I like to call the mother of election debacles, I don‘t think there is any capacity to learn from any other election debacle.
But yeah, we will see...

deepwatersolo · 21/10/2018 17:58

wrong side of histrionic nails it.