Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10250
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:21 pm UTC

The problem with the genetic testing thingy is that people forget there are such things as XX males and XY females, not to mention XXY males, XXX females, XXYY males, etc. Should a cisgendered male be forcibly declared a female in such a scenario? And what do we do with all the hermaphrodites? I hope we have a better answer than "mulching".

Chen
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:35 pm UTC

Biological sex (or sex at birth) may have some niche medical applications and thus be useful on specifically that type of document, like my Canadian Medicare card. In the US I don't even know if that type of document is common anyways.

For all other pieces of ID what value does sex OR gender have on it? It frankly doesn't need to be there at all.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10250
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:06 pm UTC

For the same reason as height and eye color?

Mutex
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:26 pm UTC

Well, people can see your eye colour from the photo on the ID, I've not seen it explicitly listed on the ID. Same with sex/gender, the photo is enough to tell people what you look like.

Chen
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:11 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:For the same reason as height and eye color?


Yes both also are pretty much unnecessary. Both have little use for identification since both can be changed fairly easily (heels and contacts for example). Height is not super easy to judge accurately anyways without a clear reference.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1968
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Grop » Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:34 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Well, people can see your eye colour from the photo on the ID, I've not seen it explicitly listed on the ID. Same with sex/gender, the photo is enough to tell people what you look like.


My (French) id says I have brown eyes. So does my passport.

Chen wrote:Height is not super easy to judge accurately anyways without a clear reference.


In most airports they don't seem to control height, but one time, in a German airport (probably Munich or Frankfort), they looked at me through a glass that had some graduation. I thought it was quite clever.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7196
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:09 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Biological sex (or sex at birth) may have some niche medical applications and thus be useful on specifically that type of document, like my Canadian Medicare card. In the US I don't even know if that type of document is common anyways.
Presuming 'biological sex' refers specifically to XY-chromosome determination, the only use I can surmise are for hereditary conditions that are exclusive to certain combinations (certain types of colorblindness are almost exclusive to XY, for example). But this is so narrow in scope that putting it on a public identification card is akin to revealing private medical information. I can think of absolutely no emergency medical situation where someone would scream "QUICK, WHAT SET OF CHROMOSOMES DO THEY HAVE -- XY OR XX?!"

Please, someone with more medical knowledge feel free to correct me.

User avatar
Jumble
Posts: 1184
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 am UTC
Location: London(ish), UK.
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Jumble » Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:58 pm UTC

I am afraid, given that this thread is entitled 'Trump Presidency', I'm appalled at the areas that are now debated here at a time when Trumps actions are so clearly harmful on so many other levels. I am, I admit, disappointed. This is Jumble, for the last time, signing off. Go well, all.
Spoiler:
Giant Speck wrote:You're a demon! DEMON!!!!

Oregonaut wrote:CURSE YOU VILLAIN!!
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Jumble is either the best or worst Santa ever, and I can't figure out which. Possibly both.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7196
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:10 pm UTC

Jumble wrote:I am afraid, given that this thread is entitled 'Trump Presidency', I'm appalled at the areas that are now debated here at a time when Trumps actions are so clearly harmful on so many other levels. I am, I admit, disappointed. This is Jumble, for the last time, signing off. Go well, all.
I mean, I appreciate that sentiment, but I think (with a few notable exceptions) most people posting in this thread agree that Trump is an amalgamation of every Captain Planet cartoon villain (particular this one), minus the coherent long-term strategy. I'm all for conversations discussing the cruelty of this administration, but I can understand why people would focus on the minutiae, too. When all the lifeboats are gone and everyone agrees the iceberg did it, what's left but to quibble over the arrangement of the deck chairs on the RMS Titanic?

Talking about positive things you can do to mitigate some of this damage is probably good, I guess. So, uh. If you're American, go vote Democrat in November? Sending a strong message to Republicans that their failure to oppose Trump has consequences is important.

(Note: Obviously, this doesn't apply if the Republicans in your district actually oppose Trump. If so, then good for them.)

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:34 pm UTC

Meanwhile if you're British you can try telling your MP that you find Trump appalling but your MP is very unlikely to give a fuck.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10250
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:14 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:most people posting in this thread agree that Trump is an amalgamation of every Captain Planet cartoon villain (particular this one), minus the coherent long-term strategy


I am deeply offended by this claim

1) Trump most resembles Looten Plunder, not Verminous Skumm
2) The Captain Planet villains were capable of creating a new plan every week, while Trump does not possess this creativity
3) In spite of being incredibly oversimplified 1 dimensional cartoon villains created for 6 year olds to understand, at least one of them, Sly Sludge, was capable of reform and becoming a goodish character (he discovers that he can make money recycling metal), unlike Trump who has yet to be known for doing anything good in his life
4) In any case, this is the villian he most resembles
5) Wait no, here is the real villain Trump was based on (the grouch who built a swamp in a day!)

Chen
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:17 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Presuming 'biological sex' refers specifically to XY-chromosome determination, the only use I can surmise are for hereditary conditions that are exclusive to certain combinations (certain types of colorblindness are almost exclusive to XY, for example). But this is so narrow in scope that putting it on a public identification card is akin to revealing private medical information. I can think of absolutely no emergency medical situation where someone would scream "QUICK, WHAT SET OF CHROMOSOMES DO THEY HAVE -- XY OR XX?!"

Please, someone with more medical knowledge feel free to correct me.


Sex matters in terms of certain diseases and conditions that only affect one sex or another due to which parts they have. Someone who identifies as a woman but was born a man and hasn't had SRS should still be getting prostate exams as they age, for example.

None of these are emergency cases. But it certainly makes thing simpler when I go to a clinic and/or hospital, give them my medicare card and they start a chart for me. As I said, I don't know if the US has any sort of standard medical card like that and it's the only case I can think of where sex is actually relevant on identification.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7196
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:31 am UTC

Chen wrote:Sex matters in terms of certain diseases and conditions that only affect one sex or another due to which parts they have. Someone who identifies as a woman but was born a man and hasn't had SRS should still be getting prostate exams as they age, for example.

None of these are emergency cases. But it certainly makes thing simpler when I go to a clinic and/or hospital, give them my medicare card and they start a chart for me. As I said, I don't know if the US has any sort of standard medical card like that and it's the only case I can think of where sex is actually relevant on identification.
Whatever convenience health practitioners get from having our physiological sex-characteristics (such as genitalia) on our identification cards (medical or otherwise) really isn't worth the invasion of privacy. What's going on inside my pants (or inside my body) isn't anyone's business, and I might not want that broadcasted on a piece of ID I'm expected to carry with me everywhere I go. It might make life a little simpler for a doctor -- but it isn't much harder to ask. Or hell, check my medical records.

Besides, this premise ignores the existence of people who are intersex. Maybe I was assigned woman at birth, but still need an SRS.

Chen
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:46 pm UTC

*shrugs* The medicare card is used for medical purposes. No one else needs to see that card, there are plenty of other pieces of ID that are used up here and hence why I wouldn't consider it a big deal to have medically relevant information on your medical card. Hell it should probably have your blood type on it too.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:52 pm UTC

I don't think there's a reasonable expectation that people have to carry the medicare card everywhere they go.

Medical records may or may not exist in a convenient format, and the person may not be in a state to answer questions. Cards are a reasonable answer to if those things don't exist, but nobody's going to make you carry a card.

I view medical records, cards, etc as different from cards where the purpose is identification. If it's handy to the medical professionals, cool. The driver's license probably doesn't need gender listed on it, though. At best, it's a limited, antiquated form of security of very little value that's been replaced by far more practical methods of validation.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7196
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:05 pm UTC

Chen wrote:*shrugs* The medicare card is used for medical purposes. No one else needs to see that card, there are plenty of other pieces of ID that are used up here and hence why I wouldn't consider it a big deal to have medically relevant information on your medical card. Hell it should probably have your blood type on it too.
Put any STDs you've had on there, while you're at it -- way more relevant than the stuff you're talking about.

And don't worry; if you lose it or someone steals it, I'm sure they won't go blabbing to everyone about whether or not you're HIV positive.

C'mon; HIPAA and PIPEDA exist for a fucking reason (though HIPAA doesn't go nearly far enough).

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:12 pm UTC

The hyperbole does not seem reasonable, nor analogous to the situation in question.

The mere letter identifying one's sex is not treated like a privacy issue the way those things are.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8271
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The mere letter identifying one's sex is not treated like a privacy issue the way those things are.

It is when people get assaulted or worse because it doesn't seem to match what they look like.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7196
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:34 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:It is when people get assaulted or worse because it doesn't seem to match what they look like.
Just to reiterate this point, because I'm disheartened by people's inability to understand the issue, here:

Yes, including information on a medical card that potentially outs transgender people as being transgender puts them at risk. Not just because the card can be stolen, lost, or simply taken out of their wallet and examined -- but because this is yet another piece of identification that can be used against them legally. Seriously, we just heard a news story about people's names being used against them; is it really that hard to imagine this being extended to gender or sex? "Sorry, but the sex on your driver's license doesn't match the sex on your medical card, so you don't get to vote. Or leave the country, for that matter. We're revoking your passport until you get this sorted out."

Yes. This puts transgender people at risk. And for what? What's the benefit, here? A doctor doesn't have to ask you a question? Or look up your medical history? Does anyone seriously think doctors prize this convenience over the confidentiality and trust of their patients?

If you genuinely think a person's chromosomal makeup (or whatever nonsense you're defining as "biological sex", today) is so medically important that it needs to be on a card, then you might as well argue that we ought to put whether or not you're HIV positive on that card, too. And if you don't see a problem with that? I don't know what to say to you. Maybe, uh, I don't know -- go read a book?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:02 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The mere letter identifying one's sex is not treated like a privacy issue the way those things are.

It is when people get assaulted or worse because it doesn't seem to match what they look like.


I view the primary problem in those cases as the folks committing assault, not the identity card. Privacy may work, to some extent, for the individual, but not everyone can hide.

It'd also seem somewhat odd for a medical card to be a big risk here. Usually driver's license or similar(college ID, etc) is what gets used for identification, and those would seem to be far more likely to be revealing. I don't think I've ever shown a medical card to anyone outside of a medical care context. For medicare, I'm pretty sure just the ID usually suffices. You don't even need to carry the card.

As for the other kinds of cards, sure. There's probably no real need for a student ID to identify sex. Even if you're in one of those segregated college or something, presumably that would be an admissions, etc issue, and carrying an ID wouldn't serve any real purpose.

That said, bringing this back to Trump, I think it's a safe bet that Trump picks the side he does for partisan reasons, not practical ones. Even if this particular card doesn't pose much risk, it's fairly obvious that he wouldn't care much how much risk he exposes others to. So, it makes sense that folks view him with distrust in this arena even if the particular instance isn't so bad.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:18 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I view the primary problem in those cases as the folks committing assault, not the identity card. Privacy may work, to some extent, for the individual, but not everyone can hide.
I view the primary problem in cases where some bastard tracked down his ex-wife and murdered her as the bastard committing the murder, not the door key. Locks may work, to some extent, for the individual, but not everyone can find a refuge.

It'd also seem somewhat odd for a medical card to be a big risk here. Usually driver's license or similar(college ID, etc) is what gets used for identification, and those would seem to be far more likely to be revealing. I don't think I've ever shown a medical card to anyone outside of a medical care context. For medicare, I'm pretty sure just the ID usually suffices. You don't even need to carry the card.
Did you ... never go to school, or maybe start attending a couple of years late, after you'd already had a growth spurt, or something? We've already established that arseholes happen.

That said, bringing this back to Trump, I think it's a safe bet that Trump picks the side he does for partisan reasons, not practical ones. Even if this particular card doesn't pose much risk, it's fairly obvious that he wouldn't care much how much risk he exposes others to.
Now on that we are entirely in agreement.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4973
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:12 am UTC

While I agree about the general uselessness of having a sex marker on most identification, and the pointed partisan motivation behind this move, I was pleasantly surprised (relative to circumstances, at least) upon reading the article in full to find that this is not, as even the intro to the article jumps to the conclusion of, legally defining gender as identical to sex, which would be even more of an outrage on par with defining pi as equal to 3, or something equally just in bald contradiction to facts; it's merely requiring sex, not gender, to be identified, without explicit comment on gender. But implicitly... see first sentence.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7196
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:04 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:While I agree about the general uselessness of having a sex marker on most identification, and the pointed partisan motivation behind this move, I was pleasantly surprised (relative to circumstances, at least) upon reading the article in full to find that this is not, as even the intro to the article jumps to the conclusion of, legally defining gender as identical to sex, which would be even more of an outrage on par with defining pi as equal to 3, or something equally just in bald contradiction to facts; it's merely requiring sex, not gender, to be identified, without explicit comment on gender. But implicitly... see first sentence.
But in practice, that's precisely what they're doing: They're making 'gender' irrelevant in regards to law, and instead relying entirely on a definition of 'sex' that they define. You're right that they're not literally redefining gender as sex -- but they're replacing all instances of 'gender' with 'sex', which functionally has the same effect.

It's like saying: "Yes, Pi can go on being whatever it is you think it is; we don't care. When we want to calculate the circumference of a circle, we'll use '3'."

Also, their definition of sex is probably going to stand in defiance of any underlying biology or science. So, there's that.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10250
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:47 pm UTC

Eh, until a few years ago, "gender" was much more closely aligned with "sex" in terms of definition. It was only fairly recently that the words diverged so much in meaning, at least in common parlance. That's what languages do; they evolve, they change, words are added or removed, additional meanings added, other meanings forgotten.

That said, this re-redefining is not actually something that helps language, and is being done for similar reasons as newspeak; eliminating rebellion by controlling how we communicate. It is doubleplusungood, I don't bellyfeel this newspeak

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:17 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I view the primary problem in those cases as the folks committing assault, not the identity card. Privacy may work, to some extent, for the individual, but not everyone can hide.
I view the primary problem in cases where some bastard tracked down his ex-wife and murdered her as the bastard committing the murder, not the door key. Locks may work, to some extent, for the individual, but not everyone can find a refuge.


Is this sarcasm, or merely a really obvious fact?

It'd also seem somewhat odd for a medical card to be a big risk here. Usually driver's license or similar(college ID, etc) is what gets used for identification, and those would seem to be far more likely to be revealing. I don't think I've ever shown a medical card to anyone outside of a medical care context. For medicare, I'm pretty sure just the ID usually suffices. You don't even need to carry the card.
Did you ... never go to school, or maybe start attending a couple of years late, after you'd already had a growth spurt, or something? We've already established that arseholes happen.


Sure. Assholes definitely happen. However, if there's no reason to show the asshole the card, then the potentially identifying nature doesn't matter much. Driver's license would be different, as that's normal to use for identification in a range of contexts.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if some such instance were tried later. I can see some slight justification for displaying sex rather than gender on a medical ID card, but politically, that isn't the end goal, of course. Some blatant overreach that *is* an attempt at erasure is probably coming. This isn't it, though. This is just the preamble.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8271
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:28 pm UTC

This is a test and a stretch of reasonable boundaries. This is something to get us used to the standard of "normal" the administration wants us to have. And as such, whether it heavily impacts people or not in practice, it should be objected to. And yes, it will heavily impact people. And regardless of that, it's a bullshit idea with no scientific basis.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:04 pm UTC

Overton window thing, sure. I don't see how it'll heavily impact people. What sort of concrete impact are we proposing?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6544
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:06 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:This is a test and a stretch of reasonable boundaries. This is something to get us used to the standard of "normal" the administration wants us to have. And as such, whether it heavily impacts people or not in practice, it should be objected to. And yes, it will heavily impact people. And regardless of that, it's a bullshit idea with no scientific basis.

Hope the margin of error falls to the Democrats favor next next week.

Tyndmyr wrote:Overton window thing, sure. I don't see how it'll heavily impact people. What sort of concrete impact are we proposing?
something like, "that filthy tranny is working for me. He's fired cuz I might catch his transexuality." Or you might lose funding for trans in the military for health coverage. Which is a fight right now.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:02 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Overton window thing, sure. I don't see how it'll heavily impact people. What sort of concrete impact are we proposing?


It's primarily about denying transgender people access to protection under federal civil rights laws such as title IX. Article from the ACLU.

ACLU wrote:Over the weekend, The New York Times revealed that officials within the Trump administration are pushing for a definition of the term “sex” in federal civil rights laws that would eliminate non-discrimination protections for transgender people.

Chen
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:13 pm UTC

Should it go through I'd argue you could still say discriminating someone because they are transgender would still be discrimination based on sex. I'd hope lawyers will go that route should this pass.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:29 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Overton window thing, sure. I don't see how it'll heavily impact people. What sort of concrete impact are we proposing?


It's primarily about denying transgender people access to protection under federal civil rights laws such as title IX. Article from the ACLU.


That doesn't seem particularly...possible. Lawmakers can change the laws to overrule the courts, but administrative interpretations can't reasonably trump law + court. Sure, in unclear cases, the court sometimes defers to administrative latitude, but that's not set in stone. Even for conservative justices. Gorusch freaking hates Chevron deference.

And anyways, those rely on a "discrimination based on sex" interpretation, which isn't really affected by a sex = gender approach. Claiming that someone is female, not male(or vice versa), doesn't suddenly make it legal to discriminate against them. The protections apply to both, so redefining is largely irrelevant.

So, as far as I can see, the actual effects of the HHS attempt are "put an entry for sex on a medicare card that you don't even need to carry, and certainly can't generally use for identification". It's certainly indicative of a hostile sentiment, and that's definitely troubling, but I don't see how this could possibly remove legal access to civil rights.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6544
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:32 pm UTC

Maybe it's also a way to out trans people so that the general public can harass them?
Lots of schools have problems where they put them into special rooms that ostracize students rather than let them share lockers with people of the same gender.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:39 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Maybe it's also a way to out trans people so that the general public can harass them?
Lots of schools have problems where they put them into special rooms that ostracize students rather than let them share lockers with people of the same gender.


I mean, if that's discrimination now, it'll be discrimination then. If not, not.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4973
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:57 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Eh, until a few years ago, "gender" was much more closely aligned with "sex" in terms of definition. It was only fairly recently that the words diverged so much in meaning, at least in common parlance.

It seems like most people are unaware of the extremely short history of the word "gender" at all, and think it "always" used to mean something like "sex". Outside of linguistics, it was only even first coined in 1950, and then, in explicit distinction from sex: John Money, studying intersexed kids, noted that despite them not being strictly biologically male or female, they were still strictly socially categorized as boys and girls, and coined the term "gender" by analogy with linguistic gender for the social categories abstracted away from sex, in distinction to actual biological sex. (Like how the moon "is male" in German and "is female" in Spanish even though it's actually neither in reality, but you can't help but call it one or the other in those languages). The term was then applied by sociologists and anthropologists to other cultures' different social categorizations abstracted away from sex, which aren't always the same two we use. Besides external performative aspects of gender like gender role and gender presentation,"gender identity" became the term for how an individual internally categorizes themselves within such social abstractions, and so became very useful for discussing what we now call transgender people, which usage seems to now dominate in public discourse.

People in more recent years do too often drop the "identity" from the term and just say "gender" when they mean "gender identity", and more and more people seem to be using it to mean the psychological state (or its underlying neurological state) that inclines people to identify one way or another, which I really think we need a different word for to avoid confusion. But there's never been a time when "gender" just meant more or less "sex", except in popular misconceptions. And there isn't really a "traditional" sense of the word at all, outside linguistics, unless you reckon traditions on a timescale of mere decades.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:59 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:Maybe it's also a way to out trans people so that the general public can harass them?
Lots of schools have problems where they put them into special rooms that ostracize students rather than let them share lockers with people of the same gender.


I mean, if that's discrimination now, it'll be discrimination then. If not, not.


IIRC: Specifically it's a problem with the way Title IX protections against sexual discrimination is worded. When it was enacted there wasn't a recognition of the difference between the concepts of physical sex and gender identity. It's only been recently (and with hard fought court cases) that Title IX has been extended to transgender people, and those cases haven't been terribly definitive effectively telling congress that they need to address the issue.

Congress has as yet failed to address the issue.

With congress's inaction on the issue, that leaves open the door for "executive action", which the Trump Administration is using that opportunity to make an official declaration that physical/genetic sex is gender. The presence of an official "definition" in the matter will effectively remove the previous cases from the category of "settled law" and people fighting for equal rights for trans people will have to fight a lot of the same court battles all over again.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:26 pm UTC

It is probably for the best that Congress has failed to address the issue, given the makeup at present.

I agree that congress could easily settle this definitively, but in the absence, I don't see continued court cases as a significant change. It seems likely that there would be continued testing regardless. I'm not seeing a well thought out strategy here either way, just continued opposition. Executive action to redefine laws doesn't remove precedent entirely. Plus, defining sex as "biological" or "birth" may change the M or F listed, but doesn't threaten the justification for extending civil rights protections based on sex. It might axe the guidance document sent out to keep schools and stuff aware of the legal status, but shouldn't upend the legal status itself.

Shouldn't affect the legality of say, the segregation principle sardia proposed as an example. Not a lawyer, but would assume that the eventual downfall of "separate but equal" as a strategy would have left behind a lot of case law to make that in particular a bad idea as well.

For title IX, we're looking at the following: no person shall “be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity” receiving federal assistance “on the basis of sex.”

That ought to soundly qualify even if we're using a Republican definition of sex.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:34 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:Maybe it's also a way to out trans people so that the general public can harass them?
Lots of schools have problems where they put them into special rooms that ostracize students rather than let them share lockers with people of the same gender.


I mean, if that's discrimination now, it'll be discrimination then. If not, not.


IIRC: Specifically it's a problem with the way Title IX protections against sexual discrimination is worded. When it was enacted there wasn't a recognition of the difference between the concepts of physical sex and gender identity. It's only been recently (and with hard fought court cases) that Title IX has been extended to transgender people, and those cases haven't been terribly definitive effectively telling congress that they need to address the issue.

Congress has as yet failed to address the issue.

With congress's inaction on the issue, that leaves open the door for "executive action", which the Trump Administration is using that opportunity to make an official declaration that physical/genetic sex is gender. The presence of an official "definition" in the matter will effectively remove the previous cases from the category of "settled law" and people fighting for equal rights for trans people will have to fight a lot of the same court battles all over again.


This.

Tyndmyr - it's my understanding that civil rights protections for transgender people under sex discrimination laws are sufficiently tenuous that adminstrative opinions will potentially have an effect on them, particularly if the judges making the decisions are politically inclined to erode such protections in the first place.

Edit: Ninja'd

Tyndmyr wrote:For title IX, we're looking at the following: no person shall “be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity” receiving federal assistance “on the basis of sex.”

That ought to soundly qualify even if we're using a Republican definition of sex.


The argument thusfar used to justify protection of transgender people under this law is basically that being transgender is connected with your sex, therefore the law is applicable. Under Trump's redefinition being transgender would not be connected with ones sex (because that's determined at or before birth by chromosomes and is not dependent on neurology nor subject to later revision through e.g. transition). That would call into question the validity of the previous legal argument.

Basically transgender civil rights protections have been shoehorned into laws never explicitly intended to contain them. That sucks, but given the current makeup of Congress it's the best we're going to get. That shoehorning unfortunately leaves them open to these sort of shenanigans.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1821
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:58 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:For title IX, we're looking at the following: no person shall “be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity” receiving federal assistance “on the basis of sex.”

That ought to soundly qualify even if we're using a Republican definition of sex.


The argument thusfar used to justify protection of transgender people under this law is basically that being transgender is connected with your sex, therefore the law is applicable. Under Trump's redefinition being transgender would not be connected with ones sex (because that's determined at or before birth by chromosomes and is not subject to later revision through e.g. transition). That would call into question the validity of the previous legal argument.

Basically transgender civil rights protections have been shoehorned into laws never intended to contain them. That sucks, but given the current makeup of Congress it's the best we're going to get. That shoehorning unfortunately leaves them open to these sort of shenanigans.


makes one wonder what they'd do with someone like me, who is an XXY male, if they are determining it by chromosomes (do they even check that at birth? Neither of my kids had it done, I'm certain).

Quick question - how many of you know that your chromosomes match your dangly bits? XXY (Kleinfelter) Syndrome (like what I have) has an incidence rate of 1 in 500. XYY has a rate of roughly 1 in 1000. Given there are 403,007 members on this forum, and roughly half are male (estimating here), then at a rate of 1/500 you'd expect 403 with XXY syndrome and 201 with XYY, and that's not even counting the ladies with XXY or XO or other chromosomal makeups.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6544
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:02 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:For title IX, we're looking at the following: no person shall “be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity” receiving federal assistance “on the basis of sex.”

That ought to soundly qualify even if we're using a Republican definition of sex.

I think a good metaphor would be if the ATF decided to define rifles as not an "firearm" from the second amendment. Then the pesky second amendment protections wouldn't apply.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:11 pm UTC

https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/sc ... ump_uk_1a/

Former MP George Kerevan has just called on the government to launch an investigation into how Trump bought the properties -- it turns out he used ALL cash, but evidence suggests he didn’t have close to the £150m needed.

So where did he get it? Let’s find out -- when enough of us sign, Avaaz will file a formal demand to back Kerevan, urging Scotland's Ministers to investigate the source of Trump’s cash using a new anti-corruption law. It could even compel Trump to turn over his tax returns -- something no one in the US has been able to do!

Trump’s life is full of close connections with mafiosos and other criminals. In the US, he does all he can to bury the truth. But here in the UK, we can show the world that no one is above the law -- not even the US President.
How? HOW does someone pay £150M for a golf course in cash? Do you just walk into the estate agent's office, followed by a coachload of guys in suits and sunglasses, each carrying a suitcase full of 10s and 20s?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DaBigCheez and 20 guests