Trump Admin Said to Refine Legal Definition of Gender, Putting Transgender Gains at Risk: NY Times

[Franklin Pierce]

• The Department of Health and Human Services is proposing a legal change that will narrow the definition of gender, according to The New York Times.

• The draft memo would roll back changes made by the Obama administration, and put recognition of transgender men and women at risk.

In a proposition that may affect federal recognition of transgender individuals in the U.S., the Trump administration is considering significantly narrowing the definition of gender, according to a New York Times report.

The publication reported on Sunday about the existence of a memo from the Department of Health and Human Services, obtained by The Times. The document attempts to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX; a federal civil rights law that protects against gender discrimination in educational programs that receive financial assistance from the government.

The new, proposed definition would classify sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals a person is born with, according to the draft. CNBC could not independently verify the memo.

"Sex means a person's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth," the department proposed in the memo, according to The Times. "The sex listed on a person's birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person's sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence."

The move would essentially exclude the transgender population from civil rights protections, and rolls back Obama administration policies that relaxed the legal concept of sex in federal programs, recognizing it largely as a person's choice.

Trump admin reportedly aims to refine legal definition of gender, putting transgender gains at risk

 

[NurseGoodVol]

• The Department of Health and Human Services is proposing a legal change that will narrow the definition of gender, according to The New York Times.

• The draft memo would roll back changes made by the Obama administration, and put recognition of transgender men and women at risk.

In a proposition that may affect federal recognition of transgender individuals in the U.S., the Trump administration is considering significantly narrowing the definition of gender, according to a New York Times report.

The publication reported on Sunday about the existence of a memo from the Department of Health and Human Services, obtained by The Times. The document attempts to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX; a federal civil rights law that protects against gender discrimination in educational programs that receive financial assistance from the government.

The new, proposed definition would classify sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals a person is born with, according to the draft. CNBC could not independently verify the memo.

"Sex means a person's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth," the department proposed in the memo, according to The Times. "The sex listed on a person's birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person's sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence."

The move would essentially exclude the transgender population from civil rights protections, and rolls back Obama administration policies that relaxed the legal concept of sex in federal programs, recognizing it largely as a person's choice.

Trump admin reportedly aims to refine legal definition of gender, putting transgender gains at risk

Well as long as it keeps guys out of my bathroom and my daughters bathrooms I’m good.

 

[0nelilreb]

• The Department of Health and Human Services is proposing a legal change that will narrow the definition of gender, according to The New York Times.

• The draft memo would roll back changes made by the Obama administration, and put recognition of transgender men and women at risk.

In a proposition that may affect federal recognition of transgender individuals in the U.S., the Trump administration is considering significantly narrowing the definition of gender, according to a New York Times report.

The publication reported on Sunday about the existence of a memo from the Department of Health and Human Services, obtained by The Times. The document attempts to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX; a federal civil rights law that protects against gender discrimination in educational programs that receive financial assistance from the government.

The new, proposed definition would classify sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals a person is born with, according to the draft. CNBC could not independently verify the memo.

"Sex means a person's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth," the department proposed in the memo, according to The Times. "The sex listed on a person's birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person's sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence."

The move would essentially exclude the transgender population from civil rights protections, and rolls back Obama administration policies that relaxed the legal concept of sex in federal programs, recognizing it largely as a person's choice.

Trump admin reportedly aims to refine legal definition of gender, putting transgender gains at risk

We already have an excepted legal definition of male and female genders , the only two scientifically proven two genders there are . If it was born with a prong it’s a male , if it was born with a receptical it’s female . If it has a Prong but thinks it should have a receptical it’s a progressive liberal . See how simple science is .

 

[#VFL__]

We already have an excepted legal definition of male and female genders , the only two scientifically proven two genders there are . If it was born with a prong it’s a male , if it was born with a receptical it’s female . If it has a Prong but thinks it should have a receptical it’s a progressive liberal . See how simple science is .

Can you show me the science where someone else trying to live a happy life changes your life? I’ll hang up and listen.

 

[#VFL__]

Well as long as it keeps guys out of my bathroom and my daughters bathrooms I’m good.

Can you tell me how many times this example you just made has happened to you and your daughters?

 

[0nelilreb]

Can you show me the science where someone else trying to live a happy life changes your life? I’ll hang up and listen.

I didn’t say anything about feelings , emotions , or the way one wants to live or not . The science of that doesn’t care about those things , thats a social construct . Facts don’t care about feelings . The left loves to talk about the right not excepting science ( climate change ) but will completely ignore this scientifically proven fact of two genders because of identity politics .

 

[Orange_Crush]

Can you show me the science where someone else trying to live a happy life changes your life? I’ll hang up and listen.

You know, they can put a species choice on government documents too. It doesn't make someone a kitten because of their feelings. If someone claimed to be a kitten, despite genetic testing, we'd get them medical help. When someone claims to be another gender despite genetic testing, we're being asked to participate in their mental illness.

 

[#VFL__]

You know, they can put a species choice on government documents too. It doesn't make someone a kitten because of their feelings. If someone claimed to be a kitten, despite genetic testing, we'd get them medical help. When someone claims to be another gender despite genetic testing, we're being asked to participate in their mental illness.

Not arguing that fact. Human beings are insanely complex beings and each and every one of us are different. However, I’m still trying to figure out how any of this changes your life? Why would you want to further alienate a human that’s clearly dealing with issues most of us can’t comprehend. Why would you want to repeal protections that allow them to cope with their issues? To me, that seems very unamerican and pretty selfish.

 

[Grand Vol]

Not arguing that fact. Human beings are insanely complex beings and each and every one of us are different. However, I’m still trying to figure out how any of this changes your life? Why would you want to further alienate a human that’s clearly dealing with issues most of us can’t comprehend. Why would you want to repeal protections that allow them to cope with their issues? To me, that seems very unamerican and pretty selfish.

Denying the science behind the two genders is a mental issue.

Sorry, but there it is.

 

[T-TownVol]

Not arguing that fact. Human beings are insanely complex beings and each and every one of us are different. However, I’m still trying to figure out how any of this changes your life? Why would you want to further alienate a human that’s clearly dealing with issues most of us can’t comprehend. Why would you want to repeal protections that allow them to cope with their issues? To me, that seems very unamerican and pretty selfish.

Me thinks thou dost protest to much.......anything we should know about your gender of choice?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not arguing that fact. Human beings are insanely complex beings and each and every one of us are different. However, I’m still trying to figure out how any of this changes your life? Why would you want to further alienate a human that’s clearly dealing with issues most of us can’t comprehend. Why would you want to repeal protections that allow them to cope with their issues? To me, that seems very unamerican.

Exactly what protections are being repealed? And of those that may or may not be in the process of being repealed, what Constitutional rights are being infringed?

And exactly what does your nebulous reference to "effect" on my life have to do with established science and obvious mental illness? I have never been adversely effected by an anorexic's mental illness, but I still believe that treating them for their body dysphoria is the humane treatment, instead of telling them they're fat. As my above example alluded to, I have never been adversely effected by someone who thought they were a cat. But I feel the loving response would be to get them mental treatment instead of calling them Sylvester and sewing ears on the sides of the scalp.

I'm talking about clearly defined science and mental illness, which you just agreed with, and you can't get past feelings. Until you point me the parts of the constitution that affirm our responsibility to feed the mental delusions of others, and promote body mutilation over mental therapy for their delusions, I'm at a loss as to how my thinking is "unAmerican".

 

[C-south]

Not arguing that fact. Human beings are insanely complex beings and each and every one of us are different. However, I’m still trying to figure out how any of this changes your life? Why would you want to further alienate a human that’s clearly dealing with issues most of us can’t comprehend. Why would you want to repeal protections that allow them to cope with their issues? To me, that seems very unamerican and pretty selfish.

How does calling a male that wants to be a female a female help them? You want everyone to participate in their delusion? I think most people are along the lines of “if you want to pretend to be a female then that’s cool but you’re still a guy and everyone else doesn’t have to pander to what you want. Use the bathroom that’s geared to the junk you were born with.” Can’t see how a dude dressed as a chic using the girls room is any better than a dude dressed as a chic using the guys room. It’s weird either way.

 

[Matt2496]

Can you show me the science where someone else trying to live a happy life changes your life? I’ll hang up and listen.

I don't think transgenders live happy lives. They have an extremely high suicide rate.

They need psychiatric help more than anything.

 

[Vol_Doc]

I see no reason to change the definition of gender from what is established by science. I also see no reason why any human being should be denied civil or legal rights based on their subjective gender identity or sexual orientation.

 

[tumscalcium]

I see no reason to change the definition of gender from what is established by science. I also see no reason why any human being should be denied civil or legal rights based on their subjective gender identity or sexual orientation.

What rights are being denied?

 

[C-south]

I see no reason to change the definition of gender from what is established by science. I also see no reason why any human being should be denied civil or legal rights based on their subjective gender identity or sexual orientation.

Kind of a contradiction. Doesn’t science define gender identity?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I see no reason to change the definition of gender from what is established by science. I also see no reason why any human being should be denied civil or legal rights based on their subjective gender identity or sexual orientation.

I think civil/legal rights in question need to be defined, otherwise I agree.

 

[Vol_Doc]

What’s rights are being denied?

I wasn't specifying anything in particular. I was just pointing out that the two issues should be mutually exclusive. Let folks live with whatever gender identity or sexual orientation they want. Also, make sure they aren't discriminated against. Don't need to change the definition of gender to accomplish that.

 

[tumscalcium]

I wasn't specifying anything in particular. I was just pointing out that the two issues should be mutually exclusive. Let folks live with whatever gender identity or sexual orientation they want. Also, make sure they aren't discriminated against. Don't need to change the definition of gender to accomplish that.

I’m not really getting on you specifically, it’s just that I’ve heard that about their rights being taken away or denied and I’m just curious as to which rights and do, well, regular people have these rights as well?

 

[0nelilreb]

I think civil/legal rights in question need to be defined, otherwise I agree.

They are already defined , it’s illegal to discriminate based on sex color or religion .
Edit : rules governing a non gender purple hippo isn’t covered for what should be obvious reasons .

 

[Orange_Crush]

They are already defined , it’s illegal to discriminate based on sex color or religion .

I apologize for how vaguely I put that. I agree. I just meant that I agree with doc, but would need to know in more detail what he's defining as civil rights.

 

[C-south]

I wasn't specifying anything in particular. I was just pointing out that the two issues should be mutually exclusive. Let folks live with whatever gender identity or sexual orientation they want. Also, make sure they aren't discriminated against. Don't need to change the definition of gender to accomplish that.

Sure there needs to be and when you want to try and become or pretend to be a different gender you must accept you may be discriminated against or barred from doing certain things. One thing that comes to mind is sports. A dude playing with girls or a girl on juice playing with boys is just wrong. May as well just make every sport unisex. Why should less than 1% be able to infringe on the rights of everyone else? Pretend to be whatever you want but there are consequences, just like free speech.

 

[volbeast33]

I wasn't specifying anything in particular. I was just pointing out that the two issues should be mutually exclusive. Let folks live with whatever gender identity or sexual orientation they want. Also, make sure they aren't discriminated against. Don't need to change the definition of gender to accomplish that.

I agree they shouldn’t be discriminated against or treated poorly.... I am against them using the female restroom or being able to compete in female sports as a biological male.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Can you tell me how many times this example you just made has happened to you and your daughters?

I see I’m going to have to prewarn ppl when I’m about to make a flippant remark.

The answer is zero times and apparently my daughters colleges have non gendered bathrooms. 3 different colleges in 3 different states.

 

[Vol_Doc]

Sure there needs to be and when you want to try and become or pretend to be a different gender you must accept you may be discriminated against or barred from doing certain things. One thing that comes to mind is sports. A dude playing with girls or a girl on juice playing with boys is just wrong. May as well just make every sport unisex. Why should less than 1% be able to infringe on the rights of everyone else? Pretend to be whatever you want but there are consequences, just like free speech.

I agree. We don't allow performance enhancing drugs in competitive sports because they provide an unfair advantage. Same can be said your example. The transgender individual must understand that there will be limits to what they can do. We all make choices in life and have to make certain concessions based on those choices.