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.

If people want to argue that Congress should pass a law expanding federal anti-discrimination laws to gender identity, they can do that. They can lobby for passage of ENDA. What’s not on is arbitrarily changing the definition of sex in legislation to mean gender identity, when the two mean very different things and when doing so subverts the very intent of the original legislation.

This.

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

Eh? This isn't even in news, the NYT have just cooked up a story and stuck a spin on it. It's certainly not something that is unexpected or inconsistent with past pronouncements of the Trump administration.

I find this disingenuous. No one's taking legal recognition (or anything else for that matter) away from cis women.

I don't understand why you're not all up in arms about the very real threats to women's rights and protections, rather than going after something on such a misinformed/badly formulated perspective. The rape clause on tax credits. Everyday harassment, in street, especially of school girls. Etc.

This isn't even in news, the NYT have just cooked up a story and stuck a spin on it. It's certainly not something that is unexpected or inconsistent with past pronouncements of the Trump administration.

In this case, I strongly suspect it is intended to rally the Democratic troops for the midterms. Given the Democratic party ist still beholden to Wall Street, BigPharma, the MIC, BigCorps and billionaire interests in general (just like the GOP, no dispute), that's probably the only thing they can offer that might mobilize people - particularly when using language as if transpeople were going to be put out of existence with firing squads by the Trump administration.

I find this disingenuous. No one's taking legal recognition (or anything else for that matter) away from cis women.

Ironically you have just taken my right to define myself (the holiest of all rights in your religion) away from me by calling me 'cis'.

the fact is that males are in fact taking away sports titles and scholarship opportunities away from females right now, courtesy Obama's nonsensical edikt to treat gender as if it were sex.
Of course you would not notice, because you don't give a shit about 'women without penis'.

Catbox, frankly, taking away our legal recognition as women is exactly what Obama did and what self-ID does (and what in fact the GRC did, just not on this scale).

This type of legislation takes away what woman means and how it is defined, over women's heads and with real life consequences like Karen Whites in our prisons and males as the natural champions in our sports.

And adding insult to injury your lot can't even be asked to come up with an alternative definition of woman (you know, definition: noncircular and objectifyable), rendering the term meaningless.

The gall.

And what do you know, Roz Kaveney now demands on Twitter that gender critical women denounce Trump for taking back those policies Obama implemented. Never mind gender critical women ostracized Obama for these policies that substituted gender for sex and wanted them repealed way before anyone dreamed (or should I say nightmared) about Trump becoming president.
Is Roz thick or is he oblivious to the actual policies repealed or is he deliberately misleading in order to vilify 'them evil TERFs'?

I quote: Has a single one of the 'moderate' 'gender critical' 'feminists' spoken out today against Trump's proposed anti-trans laws? Will we be accused of bullying if we ask them individually to do so like a decent human being?

Sorry, repost for misgendering.

And what do you know, Roz Kaveney now demands on Twitter that gender critical women denounce Trump for taking back those policies Obama implemented. Never mind gender critical women ostracized Obama for these policies that substituted gender for sex and wanted them repealed way before anyone dreamed (or should I say nightmared) about Trump becoming president.
Is Roz thick or is Roz oblivious to the actual policies repealed or is Roz deliberately misleading in order to vilify 'them evil TERFs'?

I quote: Has a single one of the 'moderate' 'gender critical' 'feminists' spoken out today against Trump's proposed anti-trans laws? Will we be accused of bullying if we ask them individually to do so like a decent human being?

Well, I suppose a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Strange times indeed.

Ol' Smooth Penis is tweeting about this thread.

As I keep on saying, if the TRAs are so comfortable in their view being right, why do they have to continually misrepresent what their opponents are saying?

If they don’t like what we say
Answer is not to lurk
Come in debate
Or would that be ......

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.

There are significant legal cases which are relevent:
Women in a homeless project:
May 2018
'Shelter forced women to shower with person who identified as a transgender woman and sexually harassed them, lawsuit says
'It says the shelter requires them to shower in groups, and it opened its doors to a person who identified themself as a transgender woman who made lewd and sexually inappropriate comments, and leered at them while they were naked.'
(extract)
"This is the biggest fear they bring up, that you're going to have people who may not even be transgender in bathrooms and settings where people are naked and their privacy rights are being violated," said Peter Kapetan, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the women.

Poverello House administrators tell Action News federal law says they have to treat a person identifying as a woman as a woman -- and there's no way to test whether it's true.' (continues)
abc30.com/3514544/

School children:
(extract)
"The decision upheld a lower court ruling in August and joins a growing body of federal court decisions from across the country affirming the rights of transgender individuals.

But unlike many of those other cases – which involved transgender plaintiffs' challenging policies that excluded them – the matter decided by the court Thursday was brought by students seeking to strike down their district's trans-inclusive policies.

"We were not expecting a decision when we walked in the door today," said Ria Mar, an attorney with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, who had argued in favor of the district's stance. "The court got it that exclusion of transgender students is a serious issue, and it wanted to send a message that the school's policy of inclusion is the right thing to do. "

Still, Randall Wenger, a lawyer for the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center who argued on behalf of the plaintiff students Thursday, vowed to continue their legal fight.

"We think that our claims are strong," Wenger said. "Even though the decision today was disappointing, we plan to continue this litigation to protect and ultimately vindicate the privacy rights of our clients." (continues)

www2.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/federal-appeals-court-oks-boyertown-schools-policy-letting-transgender-students-bathrooms-20180524.html

'Girls and boys shouldn't do everything together'
May 24 2018
Alexis Lightcap,
"The boy in the locker room did what I did — got out and found an adult to tell what happened. He soon learned what I had: that administrators at our school really didn't care about our concerns. The administrator he talked to just told him to "tolerate it" — to "make it as natural as possible." How do you make something as unnatural as that "natural?" How natural would you feel, having someone of the opposite sex standing next to you — or your child — while you change clothes or go to the bathroom?

If our administrators didn't have much to say after we told them, they had even less to say before. No one notified the students at our school — or our parents — of this sudden change of policy. No one prepared us, warned us, counseled us. Did they really think everyone would enjoy the surprise and just embrace this idea, right away?

Well, if that's what they were thinking, I guess they were surprised, too. The family of the boy who met the girl in the locker room decided to file a lawsuit for violation of his right to bodily privacy. When I learned about the lawsuit, I signed on as a co-plaintiff." (continues)
www2.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/boyertown-transgender-bathroom-lgbtq-gender-identiy-philadelphia-suburbs-20180524.html

In both cases the homeless charity and school had implemented policies as a consequence of federal law.

both cases discussed on previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3266198-No-True-Transwoman-transadvocates-question-whether-TW-is-genuine-after-said-TW-sexually-harasses-women-in-homeless-shelter?pg=4

Vegilante - thanks for that informative post.

It's so depressing the way everything splits on party lines.

The fact of the matter is that feminists sued the Obama administration on the matter, way before anyone knew what Trump thought on the matter and way before anyone but Ann Coulter thought Trump might become president.

www.feministcurrent.com/2016/08/01/womens-liberation-front-v-united-states-wolf-sues-restore-title-ix-rights-women-girls/

We all know that Trump does not act on this now, because he listened to feminists, but because he wants to appease his base with something, and like with the Democrats identity politics is the only 'mobilizing' policy that 'the powers that be' will allow to be challenged (as opposed to economics and wars), so he focuses on that.

And now they expect women to somehow oppose that Trump does what we tried to legally force Obama to do, because... it is Trump?
Someone is being irrational here, and it ain't women.

I imagine that this will be old news to you deepwatersolo, but just in case anyone else is interested there are people on Trump's said who believe that polarising the electorate over identity politics is the way for Trump to win again:

www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/opinion/bannon-trump-polls-republican.html

And what do you know, Roz Kaveney now demands on Twitter that gender critical women denounce Trump for taking back those policies Obama implemented. Never mind gender critical women ostracized Obama for these policies that substituted gender for sex and wanted them repealed way before anyone dreamed (or should I say nightmared) about Trump becoming president.
Is Roz thick or is Roz oblivious to the actual policies repealed or is Roz deliberately misleading in order to vilify 'them evil TERFs'?

Glosswitch comment

HTH Roz

You know, nauticant, the saddest part of it is that the Democrats could easily win over Trump by representing what should be Democrat core values: Single payer healthcare, building the infrastructure and reducing the military budget, free college, reintroducing Glass Steagall... All these positions have a clear majority in the US electorate.
Instead the Democrat establishment vote along an increase of the military budget, while hyperventilating about how Trump is the most dangerous man on Earth (how does that go together?), fight against single payer health care tooth and nail, prevent everything that might go against the grain of their corporate overlords, and hope that virtue signalling about TWAW and identity politics in general will win them the day. It will not.

No matter how awful Trump is, and that's lots, Democrats just going on and on about how awful he is rather than focusing on what they can offer ("our policy is to give you much less awfulness!") is a real turn-off.

Which gives you Trump energising his base while the Democrats don't seem to be offering much at all (outside of their progressive base). It's amazing to watch.

(Oh, and thanks for that feministcurrent link that you provided on the other (now deleted) thread.)

Hey Roz!

Title IX was sponsored into legislation by DEMOCRATS, decades before Trump entered politics.

www.womenssportsfoundation.org/advocate/title-ix-issues/history-title-ix/history-title-ix/

Trump’s reversal of the Obama era guidance only puts the bill back to it’s original agreed intent - y’know, the one written by DEMOCRATS, to combat SEX BASED INEQUALITIES.

Yeah, nauticant they really run on 'Trump is an awful human being' and think that it will be enough - or not, and don't care as long as the big money donors pay up. It is like in this novel 'chronicle of a death foretold'. Everyone know they will be slaughtered, and everyone just stands there and watches. (Though, to be fair, we do try to warn them, they just appear to be deaf).

Here's Jimmy Dore mocking this emptiness.

(Yeah, welcome regarding the feministcurrent link, I now posted it upthread again, so it doesn't get lost).

Just a thought ... but maybe you should trust your instinctive feeling that it's bad to agree with Trump?

Just a thought ... but maybe you should trust your instinctive feeling that it's bad to agree with Trump?

Right. So what's been your excuse for aligning with his views minimising and dismissing the reality of sexual violence against women in the past?

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Misogyny is misogyny. I trust my instincts every time when I see blatant misogyny because I know what I am looking at when I see it. I couldn't care less if it comes from right or left - it's the same shit.

This is Trump’s second most recent tweet:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I agree with President Obama 100%!
mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1054874705491120133/video/1

Clearly this means disagreeing with trump means that you are therefore disagreeing with everything Obama has ever said or done, you terrible person!

Trump agreeing with Obama on this one occasion obviously means that they are indistinguishable and share all of their values and views and are basically the same person, so what’s the problem?