Transgender Discussion Thread III: Vote in our poll!

[Grenartia]

What's funny about treating people with basic respect?

I have an old grammar book which says, "In English, gender is determined by sex." So it's more than "basic respect", it's a major change to our way of thinking and speaking.

And I have an old geography book that says the Earth is flat. Funny how old books are often wrong.

So rejecting our very existence because it doesn't fit your personal beliefs isn't disrespectful?

I'm not saying that. I am saying you are asking a hell of a lot. Sometimes a hell of a lot should be asked, whether or not I support it here is beside the point. But trying to pretend you don't ask a hell of a lot is incorrect. You do not ask for something basic, you ask for something drastic. Which should not be done with such incredible indignation.

If a hell of a lot needs to be done, it should be demanded, and resistance to doing it should inspire incredible indignation.

Do we even need pronouns? Serious point here. When was the last time you used a pronoun, except Dr which is gender neutral?

Literally all the time. Also, Dr. is not a pronoun, it is an honorific.

It’s inefficient use of language.

Quite the opposite. Its highly efficient use of language. If it weren't, pronouns would not exist.

"Daisy Johnson wants to dye Daisy Johnson's hair a different color."

That was a sentence without pronouns. See how clunky and inefficient that is? It can be made far more efficient.

"Daisy wants to dye her hair a different color."

Boom. The sentence has been made more efficient. If the person you're speaking to knows who Daisy is, or doesn't, but you can point out who she is, you can further improve the efficiency of the statement.

"She wants to dye her hair a different color."

What exactly do you by mean by "taking the piss out of lesbians"?

The transmages mind-control new members into the community using uromancy.

Makes as much sense as the other post, I guess.

Trump is gunning for trans people.

Bastard.

I remember some people saying he'd be the "most LGBT friendly republican president", it seems like what republicans say turn out to be the exact opposite, and they were insultingly wrong. I'm trans and sick of being treated like some sort of social issue, my existence is not a matter of debate and policy. Equal rights now and full recognition of trans and non binary identities. How can I be a citizen if the government doesn't recognize one part of myself as a thing? It's upsetting and a lot of my friends are angry, scared, and ready to take action. The current administration is openly hostile against the LGBTQ community, I voted, but that's never enough, sue him, make a stink, call everyone in the US congress.

Trans rights have been finally taking the front row seat after same sex marriage became legally recognized nationwide in 2015, so this is a reminder that Republican politicians don't care, even hate trans people. They're not just sticking it to the gays, or Mexicans, or muslims, but everyone who isn't a straight white Christian man.

I wonder how those trans Trumpistas are feeling right about now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender

I was hoping for a much simpler way

Unfortunately, reality is quite complicated and often cannot be adequately explained in as simple of a way one would like.

I think you're probably nearer the mark than the article. Alarmist articles about individual policy changes miss the point and probably contribute to the narrative of us as hysteric SJW types. What's more significant is the direction of travel of policy and how that could open the way for future changes than it is for the magnitude of the change itself, which as you say is only reverting something implemented briefly in 2016. But more thoughtful pieces like that wouldn't get views, symptomatic of the industry's problems across the spectum right from tabloidism up to the click-seeking social media age. Long-term trends are less interesting than making the thing that's just happened into the thing that changes everything.

I don't think Trump even particularly dislikes trans people personally. It's just a very easy way to get enthusiasm from social conservatives when there's an election coming up or he's done something that makes them a bit uncomfortable. It's more of a rollback of legal position by a thousand opportunist cuts as he keeps going and opponents of "transgenderism" are emboldened by the cumulative change of direction and pursue nore hostile policies and language locally, working towards his stated agenda.

Trump's a deal-maker trying to keep an unstable coalition of supporters together, and downgrades to trans people's social position are just one of his bargaining chips to be utilised whenever it's most useful. Some of the chips understandably take it personally after a bit.

I think Donald Trump and American conservatives just do not care about trans and queer people, in my experience at least, from encountering conservatives irl. They only care about bettering themselves financially, not seeing too many minorities, and having lower taxes. Sure there are outspoken bigots, despite being the loud minority they sure have a lot of weight in policy making. Even if it is a political move to rile up evangelicals and social conservatives, it's something that harms a community that he claimed to care about more than Hillary Clinton. But then again, it's not like Trump was ever a man of his word he has enabled and emboldened fascism in the United States, his actions have been more clear than his words.

I just hope allies will help, like I said transgender rights have become more prominent in discourse, I remember when same sex marriage was the #1 goal of the LGBT movement, or so it seemed, it pivoted to anti-discrimination in 2015 after the matter seemed to be settled.

Oh, they care about us. Just not in a good way.

[Auzkhia]

I have an old grammar book which says, "In English, gender is determined by sex." So it's more than "basic respect", it's a major change to our way of thinking and speaking.

And I have an old geography book that says the Earth is flat. Funny how old books are often wrong.

I'm not saying that. I am saying you are asking a hell of a lot. Sometimes a hell of a lot should be asked, whether or not I support it here is beside the point. But trying to pretend you don't ask a hell of a lot is incorrect. You do not ask for something basic, you ask for something drastic. Which should not be done with such incredible indignation.

If a hell of a lot needs to be done, it should be demanded, and resistance to doing it should inspire incredible indignation.

Do we even need pronouns? Serious point here. When was the last time you used a pronoun, except Dr which is gender neutral?

Literally all the time. Also, Dr. is not a pronoun, it is an honorific.

It’s inefficient use of language.

Quite the opposite. Its highly efficient use of language. If it weren't, pronouns would not exist.

"Daisy Johnson wants to dye Daisy Johnson's hair a different color."

That was a sentence without pronouns. See how clunky and inefficient that is? It can be made far more efficient.

"Daisy wants to dye her hair a different color."

Boom. The sentence has been made more efficient. If the person you're speaking to knows who Daisy is, or doesn't, but you can point out who she is, you can further improve the efficiency of the statement.

"She wants to dye her hair a different color."

The transmages mind-control new members into the community using uromancy.

Makes as much sense as the other post, I guess.

I remember some people saying he'd be the "most LGBT friendly republican president", it seems like what republicans say turn out to be the exact opposite, and they were insultingly wrong. I'm trans and sick of being treated like some sort of social issue, my existence is not a matter of debate and policy. Equal rights now and full recognition of trans and non binary identities. How can I be a citizen if the government doesn't recognize one part of myself as a thing? It's upsetting and a lot of my friends are angry, scared, and ready to take action. The current administration is openly hostile against the LGBTQ community, I voted, but that's never enough, sue him, make a stink, call everyone in the US congress.

Trans rights have been finally taking the front row seat after same sex marriage became legally recognized nationwide in 2015, so this is a reminder that Republican politicians don't care, even hate trans people. They're not just sticking it to the gays, or Mexicans, or muslims, but everyone who isn't a straight white Christian man.

I wonder how those trans Trumpistas are feeling right about now.

I was hoping for a much simpler way

Unfortunately, reality is quite complicated and often cannot be adequately explained in as simple of a way one would like.

I think Donald Trump and American conservatives just do not care about trans and queer people, in my experience at least, from encountering conservatives irl. They only care about bettering themselves financially, not seeing too many minorities, and having lower taxes. Sure there are outspoken bigots, despite being the loud minority they sure have a lot of weight in policy making. Even if it is a political move to rile up evangelicals and social conservatives, it's something that harms a community that he claimed to care about more than Hillary Clinton. But then again, it's not like Trump was ever a man of his word he has enabled and emboldened fascism in the United States, his actions have been more clear than his words.

I just hope allies will help, like I said transgender rights have become more prominent in discourse, I remember when same sex marriage was the #1 goal of the LGBT movement, or so it seemed, it pivoted to anti-discrimination in 2015 after the matter seemed to be settled.

Oh, they care about us. Just not in a good way.

Ask Caitlyn Jenner, she posted a picture that said trans people won't be erased, and then she immediately got dragged due to her support of Trump in the election.

[Grenartia]

And I have an old geography book that says the Earth is flat. Funny how old books are often wrong.



If a hell of a lot needs to be done, it should be demanded, and resistance to doing it should inspire incredible indignation.



Literally all the time. Also, Dr. is not a pronoun, it is an honorific.



Quite the opposite. Its highly efficient use of language. If it weren't, pronouns would not exist.

"Daisy Johnson wants to dye Daisy Johnson's hair a different color."

That was a sentence without pronouns. See how clunky and inefficient that is? It can be made far more efficient.

"Daisy wants to dye her hair a different color."

Boom. The sentence has been made more efficient. If the person you're speaking to knows who Daisy is, or doesn't, but you can point out who she is, you can further improve the efficiency of the statement.

"She wants to dye her hair a different color."



Makes as much sense as the other post, I guess.



I wonder how those trans Trumpistas are feeling right about now.



Unfortunately, reality is quite complicated and often cannot be adequately explained in as simple of a way one would like.



Oh, they care about us. Just not in a good way.

Ask Caitlyn Jenner, she posted a picture that said trans people won't be erased, and then she immediately got dragged due to her support of Trump in the election.

To her credit, she stopped supporting him when he kicked us out of the military. There's plenty of other conservative transes who still supported him.

[Auzkhia]

To her credit, she stopped supporting him when he kicked us out of the military. There's plenty of other conservative transes who still supported him.

She disavowed him? That's the least she could do, you can't unvote for someone. But maybe remind people of that, but I suppose there are who still on the Trump train, mostly online, though speaking of Twitter this one trans guy, known for gatekeeping, basically blamed "transtrenders" and "sjws"for the policy proposal, which aren't even a thing.

[Grenartia]

To her credit, she stopped supporting him when he kicked us out of the military. There's plenty of other conservative transes who still supported him.

She disavowed him? That's the least she could do, you can't unvote for someone. But maybe remind people of that, but I suppose there are who still on the Trump train, mostly online, though speaking of Twitter this one trans guy, known for gatekeeping, basically blamed "transtrenders" and "sjws"for the policy proposal, which aren't even a thing.

Yeah. Also, that's truscum for you.

[Auzkhia]

She disavowed him? That's the least she could do, you can't unvote for someone. But maybe remind people of that, but I suppose there are who still on the Trump train, mostly online, though speaking of Twitter this one trans guy, known for gatekeeping, basically blamed "transtrenders" and "sjws" for the policy proposal, which aren't even a thing.

Yeah. Also, that's truscum for you.

I personally don't like them since I internalized a lot of their gatekeeping rhetoric. I only heard of one case of somebody accused of being a trender in real life, but they used brain chemistry and saying that they were certain criteria for dysphoria.

[Ifreann]

The US Department of Justice has written a brief to the Supreme Court saying that businesses can legally discriminate against transgender people without violating laws against sex discrimination.

Bloomberg Law.
The Hill.

[Page]

The US Department of Justice has written a brief to the Supreme Court saying that businesses can legally discriminate against transgender people without violating laws against sex discrimination.

I honestly sort of pity people who are so petty and uptight that they have such a problem with transgender people in the first place. But then again, I really can't, because transgender people are the ones who have to deal with the consequences of bigotry.

[Des-Bal]

The US Department of Justice has written a brief to the Supreme Court saying that businesses can legally discriminate against transgender people without violating laws against sex discrimination.

Bloomberg Law.
The Hill.

"Sex is not gender", that's repeated ad nauseum regardless of relevance every time a transgender issue is discussed. Why then, would a law banning sex discrimination protect transgender people?

[Vassenor]

The US Department of Justice has written a brief to the Supreme Court saying that businesses can legally discriminate against transgender people without violating laws against sex discrimination.

Bloomberg Law.
The Hill.

"Sex is not gender", that's repeated ad nauseum regardless of relevance every time a transgender issue is discussed. Why then, would a law banning sex discrimination protect transgender people?

Why is it so vital to be able to discriminate in the first place?

[Dumb Ideologies]

She disavowed him? That's the least she could do, you can't unvote for someone. But maybe remind people of that, but I suppose there are who still on the Trump train, mostly online, though speaking of Twitter this one trans guy, known for gatekeeping, basically blamed "transtrenders" and "sjws"for the policy proposal, which aren't even a thing.

Yeah. Also, that's truscum for you.

The first time I was called that I had no idea what it meant, thought it sounded like a derogatory term for the Etruscans, and wondered why someone had assumed I was from an ancient civilisation located in the geographical area of modern day Italy.

Even worse, no-one except me finds this story funny.

[Page]

The US Department of Justice has written a brief to the Supreme Court saying that businesses can legally discriminate against transgender people without violating laws against sex discrimination.

Bloomberg Law.
The Hill.

"Sex is not gender", that's repeated ad nauseum regardless of relevance every time a transgender issue is discussed. Why then, would a law banning sex discrimination protect transgender people?

If a woman can't be discriminated against for being a woman and a man can't be discriminated against for being a man, then exactly what justification for discriminating against a trans person?

[Des-Bal]

Why is it so vital to be able to discriminate in the first place?

If a woman can't be discriminated against for being a woman and a man can't be discriminated against for being a man, then exactly what justification for discriminating against a trans person?

That doesn't matter in the slightest. To say Title VII applies to transgender people is to say that a course of conduct is illegal not that it's immoral or unnecessary or unjustified but that it is against the law. If you can't show that the law as written should apply to transgender people but suggest it should be applied that way regardless you are not being nice, or progressive, or supporting transgender people- you're advocating the death of the rule of law, a world governed by fiat and not statute.

[Page]

Why is it so vital to be able to discriminate in the first place?

If a woman can't be discriminated against for being a woman and a man can't be discriminated against for being a man, then exactly what justification for discriminating against a trans person?

That doesn't matter in the slightest. To say Title VII applies to transgender people is to say that a course of conduct is illegal not that it's immoral or unnecessary or unjustified but that it is against the law. If you can't show that the law as written should apply to transgender people but suggest it should be applied that way regardless you are not being nice, or progressive, or supporting transgender people- you're advocating the death of the rule of law, a world governed by fiat and not statute.

Let me put this another way. Say you have an MTF trans employee and decide to fire her for being trans. If you refuse to recognize her gender identity, you're firing her for being a man, which is illegal. If you do recognize her gender identity but fire her anyway, you're firing her for being a woman, which is illegal.

[Des-Bal]

Let me put this another way. Say you have an MTF trans employee and decide to fire her for being trans. If you refuse to recognize her gender identity, you're firing her for being a man, which is illegal. If you do recognize her gender identity but fire her anyway, you're firing her for being a woman, which is illegal.

Before we go into that premise should Agender, Bigender, Genderfluid, or other people eschewing the binary be protected under these provisions?

[Page]

Let me put this another way. Say you have an MTF trans employee and decide to fire her for being trans. If you refuse to recognize her gender identity, you're firing her for being a man, which is illegal. If you do recognize her gender identity but fire her anyway, you're firing her for being a woman, which is illegal.

Before we go into that premise should Agender, Bigender, Genderfluid, or other people eschewing the binary be protected under these provisions?

Yes. While I think it would be useful to have language that officially differentiates sex and gender, as the current laws conflate sex and gender, laws that protect sex protect gender by extension.

[Ifreann]

The US Department of Justice has written a brief to the Supreme Court saying that businesses can legally discriminate against transgender people without violating laws against sex discrimination.

Bloomberg Law.
The Hill.

"Sex is not gender", that's repeated ad nauseum regardless of relevance every time a transgender issue is discussed. Why then, would a law banning sex discrimination protect transgender people?

Allowing one's biologically male employees to be recognised as men but not doing the same for one's biologically female employees who identify as men is discrimination based on sex.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in March found that a Detroit funeral home violated Title VII anti-discrimination laws when it fired its funeral director after she came out as transgender.

The presiding judge wrote at the time that "discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex."

---

Yeah. Also, that's truscum for you.

The first time I was called that I had no idea what it meant, thought it sounded like a derogatory term for the Etruscans, and wondered why someone had assumed I was from an ancient civilisation located in the geographical area of modern day Italy.

Even worse, no-one except me finds this story funny.

It's not your best work.

[Auzkhia]

The US Department of Justice has written a brief to the Supreme Court saying that businesses can legally discriminate against transgender people without violating laws against sex discrimination.

Bloomberg Law.
The Hill.

How would this effect states with existing protections for trans people? I know my state has some, at least in public employment and some cities, though some companies have non-discrimination policies too.

[Page]

The US Department of Justice has written a brief to the Supreme Court saying that businesses can legally discriminate against transgender people without violating laws against sex discrimination.

Bloomberg Law.
The Hill.

How would this effect states with existing protections for trans people? I know my state has some, at least in public employment and some cities, though some companies have non-discrimination policies too.

Extra protected classes that some states have are still protected regardless of what the federal government does, but this can affect federal employees in your state.

[Des-Bal]

Allowing one's biologically male employees to be recognised as men but not doing the same for one's biologically female employees who identify as men is discrimination based on sex.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in March found that a Detroit funeral home violated Title VII anti-discrimination laws when it fired its funeral director after she came out as transgender.

The presiding judge wrote at the time that "discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex."

Well 1, we're still in the territory of every non-binary person being excluded under that logic and 2 to say that transgender employees will not be hired or retained regardless of their sex- regardless of the morality of doing so- does not read as discrimination based on sex. I don't really get the purpose of quoting the judge in article where the entire point is the DOJ, 16 states, 13 attorney generals, and 3 governors joining hands to calling that judge out on getting it wrong.

Yes. While I think it would be useful to have language that officially differentiates sex and gender, as the current laws conflate sex and gender, laws that protect sex protect gender by extension.

Then your initial point doesn't actually matter. I don't think the law was intended to apply to transgender people, the legislative history should be available somewhere so if I'm wrong tell me, to make it apply now would be kind of a big deal.

[Page]

Well 1, we're still in the territory of every non-binary person being excluded under that logic and 2 to say that transgender employees will not be hired or retained regardless of their sex- regardless of the morality of doing so- does not read as discrimination based on sex. I don't really get the purpose of quoting the judge in article where the entire point is the DOJ, 16 states, 13 attorney generals, and 3 governors joining hands to calling that judge out on getting it wrong.

And none of the above are legal scholars, they are Republicans with an anti-trans agenda.

And you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You can't say "there are only two genders" and then say "except when an employer fires a nonbinary person, in that case they are neither man nor woman and therefore not protected."

[Des-Bal]

And none of the above are legal scholars, they are Republicans with an anti-trans agenda.

And you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You can't say "there are only two genders" and then say "except when an employer fires a nonbinary person, in that case they are neither man nor woman and therefore not protected."

1. The attorney generals probably know a thing or two about legal scholarship, and regardless you don't need to be a legal scholar to understand statutory construction. The law doesn't read as though it was intended to encompass transgender people.

2. There's no cake involved. My point was that if you're talking about a non-binary person you can't argue they're being denied the right to present in away that a person of the opposite sex would be afforded. "Man and woman" are not protected classes if "sex" as written in title vii and mentioned alongside childbirth was was intended to refer to biological sex.

[Page]

And none of the above are legal scholars, they are Republicans with an anti-trans agenda.

And you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You can't say "there are only two genders" and then say "except when an employer fires a nonbinary person, in that case they are neither man nor woman and therefore not protected."

1. The attorney generals probably know a thing or two about legal scholarship, and regardless you don't need to be a legal scholar to understand statutory construction. The law doesn't read as though it was intended to encompass transgender people.

2. There's no cake involved. My point was that if you're talking about a non-binary person you can't argue they're being denied the right to present in away that a person of the opposite sex would be afforded. "Man and woman" are not protected classes if "sex" as written in title vii and mentioned alongside childbirth was was intended to refer to biological sex.

I already made it clear that because the current laws do not differentiate sex and gender but rather conflate it as one in the same, gender is therefore protected.

[Ifreann]

Allowing one's biologically male employees to be recognised as men but not doing the same for one's biologically female employees who identify as men is discrimination based on sex.

Well 1, we're still in the territory of every non-binary person being excluded under that logic

Okay?

and 2 to say that transgender employees will not be hired or retained regardless of their sex- regardless of the morality of doing so- does not read as discrimination based on sex.

Sure it does. A person living and identifying as a man gets fair and equitable treatment if they are biologically male, but a different person living and identifying as a man gets fired if they are biologically female.

One person keeps the job, one person loses their job, the difference between them is their physical sex...if that's not sex discrimination then nothing is.

I don't really get the purpose of quoting the judge in article where the entire point is the DOJ, 16 states, 13 attorney generals, and 3 governors joining hands to calling that judge out on getting it wrong.

The purpose was to answer your question. You asked how sex discrimination laws protect trans people. That various groups want to attack trans people and strip them of what protections the law currently affords them doesn't really change anything.

[Des-Bal]

Okay?

Sure it does. A person living and identifying as a man gets fair and equitable treatment if they are biologically male, but a different person living and identifying as a man gets fired if they are biologically female.

One person keeps the job, one person loses their job, the difference between them is their physical sex...if that's not sex discrimination then nothing is.

The purpose was to answer your question. You asked how sex discrimination laws protect trans people. That various groups want to attack trans people and strip them of what protections the law currently affords them doesn't really change anything.

If you're okay excluding non-binary people fine.

The difference is their status as transgender.

Talking simply of how the law's being applied when there are calls to revise it doesn't really get at the heart of the issue.

I already made it clear that because the current laws do not differentiate sex and gender but rather conflate it as one in the same, gender is therefore protected.

In what way does this law conflate the two? In what way does it approach the issue of gender? It seems pretty focused on sex and to construe it otherwise is to give force of law to a piece of legislation that is fundamentally different from the piece that was voted on.