Shit. Now I agree with Trump!

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

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.

• Trump rightly repealed this nonsensical dictat and is replacing it with one that complies with the intent of the members of Congress in 1972.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?

As I understand it, the Obama administration put out some sort of memo in 2010 saying that 'gender expression' is protected under Title IX. This was a bit vague, so they put out something more specifically 'transwomen are women' in 2014.

Trump has walked this back and in February said 'this doesn't cover transgender bathrooms' www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/edu-dept-trans-student-bathrooms but now I think they are trying to say that this specifically ONLY covers biology in ALL circumstances.

This doesn't states making their own legislation allowing transgender bathrooms, and for example Massachusetts passed a law, which is the subject of a ballot initiative to repeal it (but the TRA side is funded 20-1 over the anti-TRA side, so the TRAs will win very easily). The same thing happened in Alaska, where a ballot initiative was showered with millions of dollars from very wealthy pro-transgender lobby groups.

So in general regardless of what Trump does, the transgender lobby is so fabulously wealthy that it gets what it wants anyway.

Obviously it doesn't help when the likes of Planned Parenthood (which receives $530 million federal funding) contribute large sums to transgender causes including state ballot questions designed to allow transwomen access to female spaces.

Planned Parenthood also receive funding from the Pritzker family...

Oh there's no doubt that Planned Parenthood as a big business concern (regardless of its status, large charities operate as money-collecting enterprises) wants its slice of the billions of dollars in trans-related services that is being created.

Specifically, they do MTF and FTM hormones, and accept health insurance for that. So when Planned Parenthood lobby for insurance plans to include 'trans healthcare' they create a market which funnels tens of millions of dollars into their coffers.

terryleather that is the whole problem with neoliberalism. Every service is privatized and depends on private donations, as do politics. In parallel neoliberalism creates huge inequality.
The result is that a bunch of billionaires can penetrate every aspect of our society by buying influence everywhere, thus shaping society to their taste.

I was reading a post on this topic at a very popular American leftist site where I've been a participant since the George W. Bush years. The OP took the "Trump trying to erase existence of trans people" line, and all comments were along the lines of "this is just hatred & bigotry." I am not brave enough yet to be the first to stick my head above the parapet but I feel, with great dread, that moment looming in the future.

Right now I am most focused on getting out the vote for the crucial midterm elections, on which the future of American democracy seems to depend. I wish that were hyperbole.

As an aside, I find it very unfair to accuse Democrats of trying to throw the election. The Democratic party is more energized than I have seen it in my adult life, fielding hundreds of well-qualified, sane candidates from a variety of backgrounds (and nearly 50% women!) all over the country. Democratic candidates are out-raising Republicans by a huge margin, made up largely of small-dollar individual donations. Many of our candidates have rejected all corporate and PAC money. All kinds of GOTV efforts are under way to fight back against the GOP's rampant voter suppression efforts. Really I think the party has changed quite a bit from the Clinton (Bill not Hillary) days, and especially the new generation of activists and candidates are mostly genuine, earnest and pushing hard for real change.

Needmoresleep:

Title IX says, in its entirety: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Because it only pertains to programs & activities that are 1) education-related & 2) receive federal funding, lots of sports organizations & activities in the USA - from the NFL to the US Tennis Association - are not subject to Title IX.

USA Swimming, which recently adopted new rules allowing transgender people to compete according to gender ID, falls outside the purview of Title IX because 1) it is a not an educational institution - it defines itself as a club, or the governing body for a collection of clubs; & 2) it doesn't receive federal funding.

Any scholastic sports programs in which an organization like USA Swimming is involved would fall under Title IX, but only if the school receives federal funds. Private schools that get no federal funding are exempt.

In many ways it's like a return to the olden days of the great philanthropists like Carnegie - at least he gave us libraries as his legacy not cross sex hormones and the use of the term pregnant people.

It's always about the money, and depressingly it was ever thus.

Grinitch no offense but the party grandes do everything in their power to prevent single payer healthcare or Glass steagall or any anti war candidates.heck, the dems have made it a sport to attack trump from the right in matters of war. I wonder whether now that trump cancels that one anti arms race Deal from the 80‘s what their criticism will be. That Trump doesn‘t bomb Moscow straight away, which proves collusion with putin?
The dems are just as useless as the GOP when it comes to matters of war and they don‘t give a shit about whether that means incinerating Europe.

I don't dispute that there is a wing of the Democratic Party that is is invested in "don't rock the boat." I just don't think that it's the locus of the current enthusiasm & energy, which seem much more on the side of, for example, Elizabeth Warren, who conceptualized the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and introduced the 21st Century Glass-Steagall bill. There are real policy differences between almost all Democrats and almost all Republicans, and I believe the glib elision of those differences has been one big reason for our deplorable voter turnout numbers over the past few decades.

Anyway this is probably straying a bit outside the remit of Mumsnet FWR. To bring it back to Mumsnet, I would just like to say that I really truly appreciate the forum Mumsnet offers to air differences, argue positions, and explore intellectually. In a climate of such oppressive thought-policing, I am especially grateful for the opportunity just to agree to disagree, about anything!

QuiteContraryMary made some of these points, but since I wrote this I might as well post it, in case anyone is interested.

Today's NYT report is centered on a big lie. The 1972 federal law in question, Title IX, deals specifically with discrimination & accommodation based on sex in education (& education-related activities like school sports) in public & private educational institutions that get federal funding. Contrary to what the NYT says, Title IX does NOT mention gender or gender identity!

Similarly, the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." There's no mention of gender or gender ID, though various courts have decided in recent years that in many cases the prohibition of discrimination based on sex also includes sexual orientation.

Just as the GRA in the UK had to be passed by Parliament, & changes to it would also have to voted on by Parliament, in the US a federal law dealing with gender & gender ID would have to be passed by the US Congress. But Congress has not passed - or even proposed - any federal laws pertaining specifically to gender or gender ID, so there is no US equivalent of the UK's GRA. And there probably won't be because the US constitution leaves as much law-making & rule-making as possible to state & local governments.

Obama tried to circumvent Congressional, state & local authority by sending threatening "advisory letters" to US educational institutions that by fiat proclaimed that where Title IX mentioned sex, it really meant gender & gender expression/ID. This huge overreach was probably unconstitutional; IMO it was an egregious abuse of power. An analogous action would be for the UK PM to simply announce she's putting the proposed changes to the GRA into effect tomorrow, decreeing that "trans women are women, get over it" & excluding input from the public & Parliament entirely.

Obama's overreach enraged not just the right-wing, but also many feminists. Now the Trump admin is simply rescinding Obama's executive orders/letters & re-asserting that federal discrimination laws as originally & currently written specifically speak of sex, not gender & gender ID. But most people are not well-informed enough to know the difference, leaving the field open for TR propagandists to shriek "we're being defined out of existence!"

Unfortunately, there has been no national debate about gender ID & transgenderism in the USA, which is one of the reasons I (& I suspect others from the USA) have become such avid followers of what's going on in the UK around the GRA - & such big fans of all you UK women fighting self-ID. (Kudos & thanks.) Given the political climate in the USA today & the rapid inroads transgender ideology, lobbyists & organizations have made amongst the Democrats, the left, universities, & the MSM, there will probably will not be any reasonable, reasoned national debate about it here for a very long time - if ever.

Vegilante, I read the swimming decision as something that they had arrived at after complaints/pressure and that it was something that was still under review. It’s not something I can see female swimmers viewing with any enthusiasm, as girls won’t have a chance.

Perhaps they are hoping that, with time, there is greater clarity about what can be pushed back against.

The problem is that it is a sport in which the USA is dominant. .

One more thing: the "advisory letters" Obama sent to all educational institutions in the US didn't just say, "New rule: where Title IX says sex it really means gender & gender-expression/ID."

The letters also said that any school or school-governing body that failed to promptly implement Title IX according to Obama's new interpretation would automatically lose all federal funding, AND leave itself open to being sued for big bucks by the federal government as well. Basically it was a threat to use the powers of the federal government to judicially harass & bankrupt schools & local school boards & districts. In this case, what Obama did & how he did it were both IMO dead wrong.

The mention of the cost of buying hormones reminded me of something that does not seem to have been mentioned much in the UK context, namely the cost to the state. Things like: expanding women’s prisons, the cost to the NHS of lifelong hormones and surgery, all those gender neutral loos (DDs University is budgeting £3.4 million).

Plus a potentially negative impact on overseas tourism, overseas students etc. On top of lower participation in, so lower revenues, for sport, leisure centres and gyms, Girl Guides etc.

Proposed legislation presumably should be costed. Pity costs weren’t given as part of the consultation.

I was so surprised when the Obama administration made all those announcements reagrdaing trans children and education because there didn’t seem to be a nationwide movement clamoring for them, it seemed a very odd thing to champion. There were so many other issues that would effect a lot more people positively. Sure enough it turned out it was due to intense lobbying by at least one influential trans billionaire who was at the heart of decisions made by the administration.

Ida, said transbillionaire‘s sister was even part of the Obama administration. That is how close those ties were, no doubt ties bought by a lot of money.

An American friend is up in arms about this, phobes and bigots have been asked to defriend her.

The irony is - over the last 15 years her wealth has seriously diminished and if her daughter has any chance of a decent college education it'll be on the back of a sport's scholarship.

twitter.com/thetimes/status/1054156628872826882

The comments underneath this tweet from The Times are interesting.

Most of them along the lines of science matters and at last some common sense.

Interesting, pacemats. Cause when you search Trump and trans on Twitter today, you get the impression that the whole world is up in arms about Trump trying to legislate trans people out of existence. As if they had not existed prior to Obama‘s advisory letters that apparently adviced to treat gender as if it were sex in all legal matters.
It is quite absurd, almost reaching Russiagate levels (no, I am not a Trump supporter, but that does not mean I accept the silly mc cartheysm that depicts anything short of Trump nuking Moscow as collusion.)

Interesting. Statements that GRA reform is needed so that we can fall in line with Ireland and Malta seem to be a bit of a stretch. The UK would be a much bigger prize. And only two (on the right wing of the Tory party) MPs have spoken up.

It is all very weird. It feels like the start of a cold winter of misogyny.

So true-this is deflection about his lack of response to what the Saudis did to that journalist.....

Do you not see that failing to provide a way to have sex legally recognised IS a form of discrimination?

The amount of energy and words here on the cognitive dissonance necessary to work out how to maintain your position on trans rights whilst not aligning to Trump's ideology is astounding.

If you think there's no link between rolling back trans rights, and restricting reproductive rights, separating asylum seeking families and putting their babies in cages, just to name a few nasty policies - think again. It is OK to change your minds!

Do you not see that failing to provide a way to have sex legally recognised IS a form of discrimination?

We absolutely do Catbox. The threat of this form of discrimination is what we are fighting against, on behalf of all women and girls.

We are fighting for our right to our own legal definition and to the sex-based rights and protections which enable us to engage in public life.

Do you not see that failing to provide a way to have sex legally recognised IS a form of discrimination?

This makes no sense. Trump's proposition does have sex legally recognized. It simply holds that gender does not trump sex.

Outside a cult mentality, you judge policies by their effects and not by who proposes them.

Had Obama not ignored the economy, financial industry, inequality, and surveillance state to put all his money on identity politics, we would not be where we are. That Trump's Supreme Court threatens federal abortion rights is bad enough (maybe Obama should have pushed his candidate through when there was still time? Not his priority, apparently.) I do not think that having females compete against males in college sports does in any way ameliorate that.