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

#126
#126
Franklin Pierce said:
  • 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.

AP_18220709754963-640x480.jpg


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

If you thought you were a bird and climbed onto a roof, should you be cheered for or stopped?
 
#129
#129
Vol_Doc said:
Say the individual is outwardly female, but XY? There actually has been a case of an XY hermaphrodite becoming pregnant. How do you determine where such an individual should use the bathroom?
Click to expand...

@Vol_Doc since apparently I quoted the wrong post this morning.

So, finally get back to this because I respect you enough to comment.

Now, we are talking something that, by definition, is a genetic issue that the person has zero control over. You're a doctor and you know such things can and will happen from time to time. As to which bathroom to use, that's a tricky question. However, completely and entirely different from "I'm a man who thinks I'm a woman hence, I use the wrong bathroom." However, you divert away from the point I'm making because you know you're about to get this:

tenor.gif


Yes, trans-gender-ism is a mental issue. Used to be (and still is to a great extent) a person thought they were something they were not, the King of England for example, they would get mental health treatment for such an issue. It could have been extreme and the person could be declared mentally unstable if the treatments were unsuccessful and the person was a threat to themselves or others. Because it can be easily proven the person is not what they claim, either by scientific method or common sense. "No, you aren't the King of England and we can prove that..."

But a person thinking they are another gender entirely? Hold your horses, that's normal! Umm, WTF. How is that any different from the above situation? Again, we are talking a mental leap of imagination to believe you are something you are not. I.E. a person believes themselves to be the opposite gender when, in reality and can be scientifically proven, they are not. How is this not a mental issue? We aren't talking a genetic abnormality here where the person didn't have a choice. We are talking a state of mind in which a person is rejecting fact for their own mental fiction.

And this isn't the classic definition of a mental illness? If you as a doctor had a patient come in and say "I believe I'm a Sherman tank!" and started walking around the room making engine sounds and knocking over inanimate objects, you'd obviously and correctly ask for assistance from your mental health folks because you believe the person to be mentally ill. However, if a woman with all the correct lady parts comes in and says "I believe I'm really a man." this person is "helped" by medical professionals in stringing that belief along? How is that any different since you can prove it to be untrue? You know the first person isn't a Sherman tank because you can prove it. You also know the person isn't a man since, again, you can prove it. But the situations are suddenly different because of...what?

Change my mind.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, tennvols77 and VolunteerHillbilly
#130
#130
Someone asked about rights earlier in this thread and which ones are being violated and I have been waiting for those violated rights to be revealed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tumscalcium
#138
#138
Report: Betsy DeVos ‘Not Eager’ for Legal Definition of Sex Based on Biology
Education secretary Betsy DeVos “is not eager” to go along with other departments in the Trump administration regarding the possible establishment of a legal definition of sex that would ensure individuals’ identification as either male or female, says a new report.

DeVos may be at odds with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) when it comes to defining sex as either male or female under Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination.

Transgender ideology, promoted during the Obama administration, however, demands the federal government enforce rules that help people easily switch their legal sex, regardless of biology.

In a piece Wednesday, the Washington Post suggested divisiveness within the Trump administration over a potential decision to dismiss gender ideology when it comes to identifying individuals.

Report: Betsy DeVos ‘Not Eager’ for Legal Definition of Sex Based on Biology
 
#140
#140
Grand Vol said:
No... not really. You brought an apples to oranges comparison.
Click to expand...
Genetics is genetics. That was your angle to which I responded. If a person is genetically one gender, but physically another, either by birth or by choice shouldn't matter. Unless, of course, you're against the choice itself.
 
#141
#141
Vol_Doc said:
Genetics is genetics. That was your angle to which I responded. If a person is genetically one gender, but physically another, either by birth or by choice shouldn't matter. Unless, of course, you're against the choice itself.
Click to expand...

Do we have the technology to change thre genetic material in order for that to be an option?
 
#145
#145
Grand Vol said:
Is the anyway to change the mental portion of trans sexuals?
Click to expand...
Hard to say. It's interesting, though. I wonder if anyone has ever looked for genetic mosaicism, such as that found in hermaphrodites, among transgender individuals. I wouldn't be at all surprised if at least some percentage do have it. There's growing evidence that homosexual tendencies have a genetic basis, as well. We like to think we're in total control of our behavior, but we're not.
 
#147
#147
Vol_Doc said:
Hard to say. It's interesting, though. I wonder if anyone has ever looked for genetic mosaicism, such as that found in hermaphrodites, among transgender individuals. I wouldn't be at all surprised if at least some percentage do have it. There's growing evidence that homosexual tendencies have a genetic basis, as well. We like to think we're in total control of our behavior, but we're not.
Click to expand...

I will tell you homosexuality is not anywhere even close to what we are discussing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top