Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence

[Starbuck1975]

To what end?

Clarity for one. A MTF transgender woman would still require prostate screenings. A FTM trangender man would still require pap test screenings. If we are heading towards universal healthcare, the government would have a vested interest to differentiate and identify gender identification from sex.

 

[Victorian Gray]

It continues to amaze me how people here can not figure out the difference between sex and gender.

Most of them can. They simply don't wish to.

 

[child of wonder]

If being transgender is rooted in biology and a person doesn't have the choice in which gender they identify as, then being transgender is an immutable characteristic and would fall under civil rights protections.

If being transgender is a personal choice then it would not fall under civil rights protections.

I honestly don't know the answer. Do we have any non-biased scientific research in this area accessible to lay people?

Personally, I don't care if it's one or the other and all people should be treated respectfully regardless but if we're going to enact civil rights laws to protect a class of people I'd want those classes to be something outside their control not personal choices.

 

[Commodus]

If being transgender is rooted in biology and a person doesn't have the choice in which gender they identify as, then being transgender is an immutable characteristic and would fall under civil rights protections.

If being transgender is a personal choice then it would not fall under civil rights protections.

I honestly don't know the answer. Do we have any non-biased scientific research in this area accessible to lay people?

Personally, I don't care if it's one or the other and all people should be treated respectfully regardless but if we're going to enact civil rights laws to protect a class of people I'd want those classes to be something outside their control not personal choices.

There's some evidence of genetic factors at work. It's definitely not a choice. I know a few transgender people, and if it were just a matter of flipping a mental switch to end years of abuse and anxiety over their gender/sex mismatch... they'd have done it already.

That civil rights thing is likely one reason why there's such passive-aggressive bigotry against transgender people (where the bigots claim they have no issues, but insist on ignoring gender identities). If they had to accept the truth that being transgender isn't a choice, that would mean having to respect transgender civil rights... and, well, the bigots can't have that.

 

[darkswordsman17]

They just don't want to. "Not how I always knew it!" is the catchall term to defend craven adherence to bronze-aged thoughts on biology and sociology. Yes, as we advance from age to age, we tend to gain better understandings about the world around us, and ourselves. Biology is, probably, the most fluid example of how little we knew then translates into a world of difference today.

I find that that those who are most uncomfortable with the strange things we learn in Biology simply don't understand how this works--how little we actually know. I mean, it's fine. But there is something about a physicist or engineer or chemist, whose disciplines are more or less immutable, that simply don't appreciate how much we learn, how quickly our understanding changes, from year to year, when it comes to Biology. It's just like science--only really much harder for lots of scientists. ....and stuboorn assholes that refuse to give a shit.

I mean, that's fine. Just admit you refuse to give a shit without demanding that you actually know what you are talking about when you so clearly don't.

Its not that they don't give a shit, they do. They actively hate it, them insisting that they understand it and its biological is just them trying to justify their hatred (just like racists and other bigots have tried to use genetics to denigrate minorities and women). There's a variety of reasons, but they're all masking underlying issues. Guys especially will try to defend it with absurdly stupid rationales "I don't wanna find out a woman's a dude!" The strong responses is because people have been gaslit to hell and back to consider this stuff, at best, a joke/comedic situation, but often were deliberately ingrained that hatred and even violence is the suitable response.

 

[darkswordsman17]

It's a wedge issue. Policy is too complicated for their voters and well, for republicans, as all they do is support job-killing, poverty-inducing policy that keeps their voters in perpetual misery.

This is something for the ignorant to get emotional about. It has no relevance in their lives, but as long as you tune their brains to it, they forget about their miserable lives and manage to cast blame for their actual shitty decisions in life onto these other issues, and all "the others."

I was starting to correct you, in that its not about making people forget about their miserable lives, but you hit it perfectly right after. Its deliberately so that the people causing the real problems can blame these other issues for that misery.

 

[Jhhnn]

Clarity for one. A MTF transgender woman would still require prostate screenings. A FTM trangender man would still require pap test screenings. If we are heading towards universal healthcare, the government would have a vested interest to differentiate and identify gender identification from sex.

That's bullshit. The only interested parties are people & their physicians.

I certainly don't pretend to understand it well at all but I figure it's an expression of personal freedom that I'm willing to accept. And, uhh, if some transgender folks are unconvincing in their chosen role it's their problem, not mine. I'll still give them the same civility & respect I offer to everybody else.

 

[sandorski]

Problem solved then. MAGA....I'm sure Transexuals will be relieved to hear they are not Transexuals.

 

[Starbuck1975]

That's bullshit. The only interested parties are people & their physicians.

I certainly don't pretend to understand it well at all but I figure it's an expression of personal freedom that I'm willing to accept. And, uhh, if some transgender folks are unconvincing in their chosen role it's their problem, not mine. I'll still give them the same civility & respect I offer to everybody else.

Biology is not bullshit.

Policy is based on data, and gender expression as a data point is worthless when it comes to policies such as universal health care.

We can extend civility and respect (acknowledge preferred pronouns, zero tolerance towards harassment and discrimination, etc.) while also recognizing certain biological realities.

The same as it is pointless to “wish away” trangender people, it is pointless to “wish away” biology.

 

[fskimospy]

Biology is not bullshit.

Policy is based on data, and gender expression as a data point is worthless when it comes to policies such as universal health care.

We can extend civility and respect (acknowledge preferred pronouns, zero tolerance towards harassment and discrimination, etc.) while also recognizing certain biological realities.

The same as it is pointless to “wish away” trangender people, it is pointless to “wish away” biology.

First, the government does not currently implement universal health care so saying we need to collect this data at birth for a policy we don’t have makes no sense.

Second, even if we did enact universal health care there would be no meaningful benefit from the government forcing this identification in some official document at birth. Hospitals don’t get that information from birth certificates now so why would that change?

If your best argument for forcing citizens to make this choice is that it might provide a tiny administrative efficiency to a proposed future health program then that’s kind of the end of it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

First, the government does not currently implement universal health care so saying we need to collect this data at birth for a policy we don’t have makes no sense.

That was the easiest scenario to frame without overcomplicating the conversation.

Second, even if we did enact universal health care there would be no meaningful benefit from the government forcing this identification in some official document at birth. Hospitals don’t get that information from birth certificates now so why would that change?

The only thing a doctor at birth can determine is sex. Might as well document the sex based on biology and put “TBD” for the gender. If gender is a frame of mind and form of expression, and since a baby is incapable of expressing its gender, what is there to document? Is it so the parents know what colors to choose for the nursery (which I recognize is a whole other conversation around imposed gender roles).

If your best argument for forcing citizens to make this choice is that it might provide a tiny administrative efficiency to a proposed future health program then that’s kind of the end of it.

There are many arguments to be made for the collision of when sex and gender are out of alignment. There is a reason that sport teams segregate into boys and girls as early as 1st grade. There is a reason why urinals exist. There are fields of medicine that align to one sex. All of these things can be accomodated. The cycling world is the latest to slam into this.

 

[fskimospy]

That was the easiest scenario to frame without overcomplicating the conversation.

The only thing a doctor at birth can determine is sex. Might as well document the sex based on biology and put “TBD” for the gender. If gender is a frame of mind and form of expression, and since a baby is incapable of expressing its gender, what is there to document? Is it so the parents know what colors to choose for the nursery (which I recognize is a whole other conversation around imposed gender roles).

There are many arguments to be made for the collision of when sex and gender are out of alignment. There is a reason that sport teams segregate into boys and girls as early as 1st grade. There is a reason why urinals exist. There are fields of medicine that align to one sex. All of these things can be accomodated.

And none of these things need to be based on a government document collected at birth.

The argument for it seems to be based on the idea that we have always done it that way. I struggle to find any good argument for why we should force it if parents want to decline. It will make no meaningful difference to anyone.

 

[Starbuck1975]

And none of these things need to be based on a government document collected at birth.

The argument for it seems to be based on the idea that we have always done it that way. I struggle to find any good argument for why we should force it if parents want to decline. It will make no meaningful difference to anyone.

Here is another example. I was in junior high at a time when society was first learning about AIDs, so there was a push to talk about safe sex and anatomy in health class at a much earlier age.

For that health class, the boys separated into one room and the girls in another. The boys learned about their boy parts and all the things that go along with it (which consisted of the male health instructor making penis jokes for 30 mins) while the girls learned about things like birth control, periods, yeast infections, etc. from the school nurse.

Let’s say a mtf student transfers into the school district and there is nothing to identify that she is biologically a male.

Which health class does she attend and benefit most from?

Or do we just throw a bunch of 8th graders in one class, and everyone learns about all biological considerations? I can imagine quite a few mothers opposed to the idea of immature boys being in the same room when girls are first being taught about their bodies.

 

[fskimospy]

Here is another example. I was in junior high at a time when society was first learning about AIDs, so there was a push to talk about safe sex and anatomy in health class at a much earlier age.

For that health class, the boys separated into one room and the girls in another. The boys learned about their boy parts and all the things that go along with it (which consisted of the male health instructor making penis jokes for 30 mins) while the girls learned about things like birth control, periods, yeast infections, etc. from the school nurse.

Let’s say a mtf student transfers into the school district and there is nothing to identify that she is biologically a male.

Which health class does she attend and benefit most from?

Or do we just throw a bunch of 8th graders in one class, and everyone learns about all biological considerations? I can imagine quite a few mothers opposed to the idea of immature boys being in the same room when girls are first being taught about their bodies.

You don’t think the school determined who went into what class by pulling everyone’s birth certificate and checking it, do you?

 

[Starbuck1975]

You don’t think the school determined who went into what class by pulling everyone’s birth certificate and checking it, do you?

No, but birth certificates and proof of residence are typically required to enroll a child in school, which then feeds the database that determines things like gender specific class assignments for things like sports, health class, etc.

 

[fskimospy]

No, but birth certificates and proof of residence are typically required to enroll a child in school, which then feeds the database that determines things like gender specific class assignments for things like sports, health class, etc.

Birth certificates are not required to enroll children in school, at least not in NYC. Here you can use records of baptism, documents from international aid agencies, tribal documents, etc. Furthermore, the only purpose of a birth certificate here is to establish proof of age, not sex or gender. Much like with health care, birth certificates are simply not used to make the sort of decisions you're talking about. It's way too cumbersome when you can just have someone check a box one way or the other.

 

[nakedfrog]

Clarity for one. A MTF transgender woman would still require prostate screenings. A FTM trangender man would still require pap test screenings. If we are heading towards universal healthcare, the government would have a vested interest to differentiate and identify gender identification from sex.

If clarity is the goal, then something other than an immutable binary switch assigned at birth would be more useful. To use your example, an MTF could also need breast cancer screenings, and an FTM that's had them removed could not need them. This birth-binary option wouldn't be much use there.

 

[Lanyap]

Birth certificates are not required to enroll children in school, at least not in NYC. Here you can use records of baptism, documents from international aid agencies, tribal documents, etc. Furthermore, the only purpose of a birth certificate here is to establish proof of age, not sex or gender. Much like with health care, birth certificates are simply not used to make the sort of decisions you're talking about. It's way too cumbersome when you can just have someone check a box one way or the other.

Just to clarify, are you postulating that physical sex should not be recorded on birth certificates or computerized birth certificate records only. Or are you also postulating that physical sex should not be recorded by any entity, governmental and corporate, for any reason and that only the person should "own" their physical sex and only share it if they want to and in any form they want to?

 

[Lanyap]

If being transgender is rooted in biology and a person doesn't have the choice in which gender they identify as, then being transgender is an immutable characteristic and would fall under civil rights protections.

If being transgender is a personal choice then it would not fall under civil rights protections.

I honestly don't know the answer. Do we have any non-biased scientific research in this area accessible to lay people?

Personally, I don't care if it's one or the other and all people should be treated respectfully regardless but if we're going to enact civil rights laws to protect a class of people I'd want those classes to be something outside their control not personal choices.

Scientific research is currently being done to determine if special brain scans can determine if a person is biologically transgender. Initial research shows that some physical males that are transgender female show neurological signs of having female brain characteristics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-promised-study-shows-structural-differences/

Here is a good list of LGBTQA+ related definitions as a basis for discussion.
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lgbtqi/resources/definitions

 

[fskimospy]

Just to clarify, are you postulating that physical sex should not be recorded on birth certificates or computerized birth certificate records only. Or are you also postulating that physical sex should not be recorded by any entity, governmental and corporate, for any reason and that only the person should "own" their physical sex and only share it if they want to and in any form they want to?

I'm not saying any of those things. I'm saying that this policy serves no discernible purpose other than anti-trans animus so we shouldn't do it as it's irrational. It's also at odds with the science.

This is silly culture war stuff. Exactly as with NYC birth certificates it's impossible for me to understand why anyone gives a shit other than they feel it's yucky or something and want to force other people to conform to their ideas of how things should be.

 

[Lanyap]

I'm not saying any of those things. I'm saying that this policy serves no discernible purpose other than anti-trans animus so we shouldn't do it as it's irrational. It's also at odds with the science.

This is silly culture war stuff. Exactly as with NYC birth certificates it's impossible for me to understand why anyone gives a shit other than they feel it's yucky or something and want to force other people to conform to their ideas of how things should be.

So you are only talking about the Trump admin changing transgender policy back to where it was before Obama admin changed it?

 

[fskimospy]

So you are only talking about the Trump admin changing transgender policy back to where it was before Obama admin changed it?

I think both requiring a binary male/female on a birth certificate is dumb along with the Trump administration's attempt to pull basically the same crap on title IX.

It's just old and/or sheltered people trying to enforce their social norms on others so they don't feel uncomfortable. It's silliness.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Here is another example. I was in junior high at a time when society was first learning about AIDs, so there was a push to talk about safe sex and anatomy in health class at a much earlier age.

For that health class, the boys separated into one room and the girls in another. The boys learned about their boy parts and all the things that go along with it (which consisted of the male health instructor making penis jokes for 30 mins) while the girls learned about things like birth control, periods, yeast infections, etc. from the school nurse.

Let’s say a mtf student transfers into the school district and there is nothing to identify that she is biologically a male.

Which health class does she attend and benefit most from?

Or do we just throw a bunch of 8th graders in one class, and everyone learns about all biological considerations? I can imagine quite a few mothers opposed to the idea of immature boys being in the same room when girls are first being taught about their bodies.

Ironic you bring this up, considering if they actually taught everyone the same materials regarding human anatomy (rather than hide it out of some protestant-ian fear of corrupting youths), you'd have a lot less confusion from people about the information they were never told. Hell, maybe you could even go into the anatomy and gender dynamics of people who don't fit into one of the two 'buckets', thus making the whole thing a lot less scary for future generations. That's a little too forward-thinking though so I'll understand if you have an aversion to the notion.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Ironic you bring this up, considering if they actually taught everyone the same materials regarding human anatomy (rather than hide it out of some protestant-ian fear of corrupting youths), you'd have a lot less confusion from people about the information they were never told. Hell, maybe you could even go into the anatomy and gender dynamics of people who don't fit into one of the two 'buckets', thus making the whole thing a lot less scary for future generations. That's a little too forward-thinking though so I'll understand if you have an aversion to the notion.

I support teaching everyone the same material. Our nation is far too puritanical when it comes to sex and far too tolerant of violence. You’ve got 8 year olds shooting one another in Fortnite, but their fragile minds couldn’t handle it if one of the skins showed exposed genitals.

We are in agreement, but I understand your jumping to conclusions.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If clarity is the goal, then something other than an immutable binary switch assigned at birth would be more useful. To use your example, an MTF could also need breast cancer screenings, and an FTM that's had them removed could not need them. This birth-binary option wouldn't be much use there.

This is a good example of why you would need to track biological realities. I never asserted biology is necessarily static. Prevention is better than care, and its absolutely important to target the right demographics

A mtf with breasts may not know to get breast or prostate exams.