Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

Postby cmsellers » Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:48 am

I am surprised no one has made a thread on this. The Department of Health and Human Services is proposing to define "sex" as immutable and fixed at birth, and to excise gender identity from protections based on sex, and seeking to get other federal agencies to do the same in the hopes that it will stand up to lawsuits. Courts have tended to defer to federal agencies in how they interpret the law, as long as the interpretation is reasonable, and given how successfully McConnell has packed the courts, they may very well uphold this.

The idea that "sex" doesn't cover gender identity seems superficially reasonable, since the difference between sex and gender identity is one that trans activists make themselves, and superficially reasonable may be enough for John Roberts. However discriminating against people for being trans means discriminating against them for not fulfilling the roles expected of their biological sex. To do otherwise is to essentially argue for a "separate but equal" standard. For this reason, courts have interpreted "sex" as including gender identity and gender expression for a long time, so it is also possible Roberts might consider this jurisprudence to take precedence.

This ruling also has some interesting implications for intersex people, insomuch as we were clearly not considered here. The DHHS has proposed that disputes will be resolved by karyotyping. Given that many people have a Y chromosome but appear and identify as female, or an X chromosome but appear and identify as male, this could theoretically lead to ipsogender intersex people being assigned to a gender different than the one that they were assigned at birth and identify with. In practice, given that it would only apply to disputes, it looks like it will allow some intersex people to be recognized as a sex opposite the one they were assigned at birth if they so choose, though I am sure that was not the intent.

I assume that when they went with karyotyping rather than the more popular and much cheaper "if you have a penis, you're a man; if you have a vagina, you're a woman" it was not because they recognize that a growing minority of intersex people with ambiguous genitalia don't have them "corrected" at birth. The generous explanation is that they realized that it would be incredibly unpopular to have official genital checkers. The less generous explanation, and the one I suspect is the main driving force in light of the other changes, is that it would allow trans people who have had bottom surgery to be classified as their gender identity, and we can't have that now.
  • 7

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

Re: Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

Postby KleinerKiller » Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:10 am

I saw the thread title and briefly thought Trump, in one of his syphilitic dementia hazes, was trying to force a Puritanical redefinition of what would officially be recognized as sex acts. As the thread loaded, I amused myself by thinking up some kind of joke about Trump publicly planning to "redefine sex" for his next wife.

It's been a while since I went from mildly entertained sleepiness to utter horror and an intense feeling of helplessness so quickly.

I try my best these days to avoid the kind of irritating ideological doomsaying I see so often on the internet (i.e. "Handmaid's Tale will be a reality in a few years", etc), but after reading the article and contemplating it, I can't imagine that this won't be put into effect and immediately be used to justify other rights rollbacks until transgender and intersex people are federally classed as subhumans. Once your governmental body is dead set on simply willing a few million people to just not exist anymore as they do now, where's the moral line against doing something even worse to them?
  • 5

"Your mind is software. Program it. Your body is a shell. Change it. Death is a disease. Cure it." - Eclipse Phase

NEW REVIEW! Judgment / Judge Eyes (2019)
User avatar
KleinerKiller
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1883
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:34 pm
Location: Newfoungengzealaustrermany
Show rep
Title: Cute

Re: Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

Postby cmsellers » Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:27 am

I would like to point out that in fairness to the Trump Administration, they don't seem to be targeting intersex people, they don't seem to realize we exist at all. Which is par for the course, TBF.
  • 5

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

Re: Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

Postby Crimson847 » Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:10 am

cmsellers wrote:I am surprised no one has made a thread on this. The Department of Health and Human Services is proposing to define "sex" as immutable and fixed at birth, and to excise gender identity from protections based on sex, and seeking to get other federal agencies to do the same in the hopes that it will stand up to lawsuits. Courts have tended to defer to federal agencies in how they interpret the law, as long as the interpretation is reasonable, and given how successfully McConnell has packed the courts, they may very well uphold this.


Hey now, that's not fair. Judges and justices don't caucus in separate chambers or sit on different sides of an aisle; they follow neutral legal principles that have no relationship to their personal policy judgments. In this case, the new wave of conservative judges have often been hyped as reliable opponents of so-called Chevron deference (after the SCOTUS case that established the precedent). So the courts (now with "originalist" legal thinkers who are guided by the Constitution as it was originally meant to be interpreted rather than wishy-washy liberal feelings) quite plausibly won't just accept whatever the Trump administration tells them--they may decide for themselves if the new definition is correct. And we can be sure that conservative personal views won't affect that judgment, because originalism.
  • 5

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

Postby sunglasses » Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:52 am

The idea that they could possibly punish people for not following a preconceived gender role literally terrifies me.
  • 6

TCS Etiquette Guide

Rules and FAQs

Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
User avatar
sunglasses
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 11541
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Show rep
Title: The Speaker of Horrors.

Re: Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

Postby Windy » Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:15 am

oh no how many billions of minorities will die because of Trump now?
  • 0

User avatar
Windy
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 11:41 am
Show rep

Re: Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

Postby IamNotCreepy » Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:12 pm

Windy wrote:oh no how many billions of minorities will die because of Trump now?


Do you have anything productive to add to the discussion? If not, knock it off.

This issue does have a real impact on people, so please be mindful of that when posting. If you have an opposing viewpoint you'd like to share, go for it. Otherwise, please try to limit the snark.
  • 12

User avatar
IamNotCreepy
TCS Admin
TCS Admin
 
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:00 am
Location: Inside the "Cone of Uncertainty"
Show rep
Title: Chasing after the Wind

Re: Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

Postby Absentia » Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:00 pm

sunglasses wrote:The idea that they could possibly punish people for not following a preconceived gender role literally terrifies me.


I'm not a big fan of government-ordered genetic testing for law abiding citizens, either.

EDIT: And before anyone points it out - yes, courts have held that people can be required to submit to genetic tests when they serve a compelling interest, such as determining paternity. I don't consider telling people which bathroom they're allowed to use to be a compelling interest.
  • 8

User avatar
Absentia
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:46 am
Location: Earth
Show rep

Re: Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

Postby Deathclaw_Puncher » Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:47 pm

Science to these idiots is finite; completing fully at high school graduation in the form of a textbook published 15 years prior.

Shit like this wouldn't happen if WPATH v.2013 was treated as more than a suggestion, but no, we got to allow Dr. Mike Pence over there to have his pet theories. I've encountered a lot of horror stories concerning gender therapists where people get turned away for wearing pants or being on the spectrum while AMAB. Lots of idiots out there breaking social taboos of science by trying to coach 1950s gender roles onto people. Lots of people still worship the writings of Blanchard despite him being discredited, all of his ideas being found to be largely based on sexist stereotypes redarding female sexuality. He's basically what happens when an adult sexologist still holds on to the assumption that women pee out of their butts, and people still hold onto him. Holdover scientists being listened to will be the death of science.
  • 0

Image
User avatar
Deathclaw_Puncher
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 12452
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:42 pm
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Show rep
Title: Queen of the Furrets

Re: Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

Postby sunglasses » Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:35 pm

Could you please type out the acronyms? I'm not very familiar with them. Thank you.
  • 7

TCS Etiquette Guide

Rules and FAQs

Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
User avatar
sunglasses
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 11541
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Show rep
Title: The Speaker of Horrors.

Re: Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

Postby Windy » Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:43 pm

IamNotCreepy wrote:Do you have anything productive to add to the discussion? If not, knock it off.


No one has anything productive to add. No one on the internet argues honestly anymore so there really isn't a point in trying.

Most people tolerate transexuals because of politeness and civility, not because they actually think you have any logical or scientific justification for it. They do it because it means a hell of a lot more to you than it does to them. But what you want isn't merely to control their behavior, but to control what they're allowed to believe, and that's the greatest violation you can make on one's identity, worse than any kind of misgendering. Worse is that you'll never have enough scientific justification for violating their beliefs, because the question is in the realm of philosophy, not science, and no amount of coy word games you play is going to change that.

This issue does have a real impact on people, so please be mindful of that when posting.


No one really cares, we just virtue signal about it so we can feel good about ourselves.
  • 0

User avatar
Windy
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 11:41 am
Show rep

Re: Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

Postby Kate » Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:04 pm

Our goal here is to discuss things in good faith, with honesty and respect. It doesn't matter if the rest of the internet is jumping off a cliff, that doesn't mean we need to.

You may believe that is how most people behave in regard to trans issues but without a citation to back it up, it means nothing. You don't speak for most people. You can only speak for you.

People here who are trans probably care, and so do their loved ones.

If your opinion is that this doesn't actually hurt anyone, please tell us why. If you believe this is about controlling what others believe, please tell us how. But telling us what most people think or do without having any way to back that up is not really adding to discussion.
  • 15

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: Trump Admin mulls redefining "sex"

Postby cmsellers » Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:14 pm

I would like to remind people that the changes roll back protections on gender expression too. If a school wants to mandate that female students wear skirts to class, if an employer wants to mandate that female employees shave their legs and male employees have short hair, this proposal might allow that, though my understanding is that a fairly substantial body of established case law begs to differ.

Also, I want to add that based on some other things I have read, it looks like the idea is that people will be assigned a sex at birth based on their genitals, and only people with ambiguous genitals will be decided by karyotyping. In which case, it appears that the authors of the proposal did consider intersex people after all. And now I wonder if recent moves to get intersex and nonbinary options added on birth certificates means that we've finally become prominent enough to discriminate against.
  • 7

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests

cron