RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:33 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:24 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
It certainly does...especially over just about any short run...and there are many more examples.

Without being pollyannish however, over the long run, this is not the trend in the US. And this idiot and his minions too will fail and, hopefully, be recognized among the same group of shameful events.


When it comes to trans rights, it's a trend, even amongst LGBTQ and our organizations. It was barely a decade ago that the HRC basically told trans people that they're not going to advocate for the "T" in getting an ENDA bill passed. Not to mention larger society... and then you get the policies of this administration. This administration has a multi-pronged attack on trans people, in the military, in schools, in employment, in the HHS.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:50 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
DOJ: Businesses Can Discriminate Against Transgender Workers - Bloomberg Law

Quote:
The Justice Department today told the U.S. Supreme Court that businesses can discriminate against workers based on their gender identity without violating federal law.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the high court that a civil rights law banning sex discrimination on the job doesn’t cover transgender bias. That approach already has created a rift within the Trump administration, contradicting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s view of the law it’s tasked with enforcing.

A Michigan funeral home wants the high court to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decision finding that the company violated federal workplace discrimination law when it fired Aimee Stephens, a transgender worker. The EEOC successfully sued on behalf of Stephens in that case, but the Justice Department has the sole authority to represent the government before the Supreme Court. The DOJ told the high court that the Sixth Circuit got the case wrong.

“The court of appeals misread the statute and this Court’s decisions in concluding that Title VII encompasses discrimination on the basis of gender identity,” Francisco said in a brief filed with the court.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming months whether to take up the case. It’s also been asked to consider two other cases testing whether sexual orientation bias is a form of sex discrimination banned under the existing law.

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to first decide whether to take those two cases before making a decision on whether to review the Stephens case.

The DOJ’s brief follows a New York Times report that the Department of Health and Human Services is considering limiting its definition of gender to sex assigned at birth.

“This administration is not a friend of the LGBT community,” Greg Nevins, an attorney for Lambda Legal, told Bloomberg Law. “They can say what they’re going to say, but the courts will have the final word.”

The American Civil Liberties Union has intervened in the case and will represent Stephens if the high court decides to grant the funeral home’s request for review.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:16 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:23 pm
Posts: 7380
Those who want to dominate and control always pick a minority to make a scapegoat, based on the sad fact that it will prompt (manipulate) ... they used to call it "propaganda" ... still sounds 'right' to me. (edited to add sneer quotes to 'right'.

_________________
"To Be Is to Do" - Plato
"To Do Is to Be" - Socrates
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do" - Sinatra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
Those who want to dominate and control always pick a minority to make a scapegoat, based on the sad fact that it will prompt (manipulate) ... they used to call it "propaganda" ... still sounds 'right' to me. (edited to add sneer quotes to 'right'.


Yes except this isn't propaganda or scapegoating. It's a concerted effort on the part of the government to deny citizenship rights to millions of people through various routes: military, education, Health and Human Services, and employment.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:13 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12761
Location: Sunny South Florida
So, the global erasure agenda continues.

Trump administration wants to remove 'gender' from UN human rights documents
Exclusive: US diplomats have pushed for rewriting of collective statements to remove language inclusive of transgender people
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... ed-nations

The US mission to the United Nations is seeking to eliminate the word “gender” from UN human rights documents, most often replacing it with “woman”, apparently as part of the Trump administration’s campaign to define transgender people out of existence.

At recent meetings of the UN’s Third Committee, which is concerned with “social, humanitarian and cultural” rights, US diplomats have been pushing for the rewriting of general assembly policy statements to remove what the administration argues is vague and politically correct language, reflecting what it sees as an ‘ideology’ of treating gender as an individual choice rather than an unchangeable biological fact.

For example, in a draft paper on trafficking in women and girls introduced by Germany and Philippines earlier this month, the US wants to remove phrases like “gender-based violence” would be replaced by “violence against women”.

[snip]

To succeed in its campaign, the US will have to forge unusual alliances, with Russia and conservative Islamic states, against its western European partners.

[snip]

Last month, the state department quietly changed the name of a webpage to address transgender issues on passports, from “gender designation change” to “change of sex marker”, in what appears to be a wider campaign against the word “gender”.

“It’s clear the administration is engaged in a broad strategy of erasing transgender people’s existence across the federal government,” Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Centre for Transgender Equality, said. “While it’s infuriating they would behave in such an extreme and volatile manner at the United Nations, we are confident their prejudice will lose out to science, reason, and the ongoing fight for human rights.”

The New York Times reported on Monday that the administration had drawn up a policy paper to define gender narrowly as restricted as male or female only, and immutable from birth, despite the American Medical Association (AMA) ruling last year that gender and sexual identities are not always binary.

The effort is aimed at reversing changes to federal programmes made by the Obama administration. Those reforms made gender a matter of individual choice rather than the sex designated at birth. A leaked memo from the Department of Health and Human Services said government agencies should adopt a definition of gender determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.”

[snip][end]

Let's see - you're ignoring the AMA and the medical community, and using bogus biological concepts, but what you're doing is 'grounded in science'?

So-called 'reparative therapy' and eugenics claimed to be 'grounded in science' also but were really pseudoscientific.

Besides erasing trans people from existence, this agenda has one other consequence. And it's odd - do they not get it? Defining gender based violence as "violence against women" ... well, while I agree that is the majority of domestic violence etc. ... domestic violence can be against men (rarer, but yes it does happen) and especially against male children/young boys ...

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:24 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
So, the global erasure agenda continues.

Trump administration wants to remove 'gender' from UN human rights documents
Exclusive: US diplomats have pushed for rewriting of collective statements to remove language inclusive of transgender people
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... ed-nations

The US mission to the United Nations is seeking to eliminate the word “gender” from UN human rights documents, most often replacing it with “woman”, apparently as part of the Trump administration’s campaign to define transgender people out of existence.

At recent meetings of the UN’s Third Committee, which is concerned with “social, humanitarian and cultural” rights, US diplomats have been pushing for the rewriting of general assembly policy statements to remove what the administration argues is vague and politically correct language, reflecting what it sees as an ‘ideology’ of treating gender as an individual choice rather than an unchangeable biological fact.

For example, in a draft paper on trafficking in women and girls introduced by Germany and Philippines earlier this month, the US wants to remove phrases like “gender-based violence” would be replaced by “violence against women”.

[snip]

To succeed in its campaign, the US will have to forge unusual alliances, with Russia and conservative Islamic states, against its western European partners.

[snip]

Last month, the state department quietly changed the name of a webpage to address transgender issues on passports, from “gender designation change” to “change of sex marker”, in what appears to be a wider campaign against the word “gender”.

“It’s clear the administration is engaged in a broad strategy of erasing transgender people’s existence across the federal government,” Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Centre for Transgender Equality, said. “While it’s infuriating they would behave in such an extreme and volatile manner at the United Nations, we are confident their prejudice will lose out to science, reason, and the ongoing fight for human rights.”

The New York Times reported on Monday that the administration had drawn up a policy paper to define gender narrowly as restricted as male or female only, and immutable from birth, despite the American Medical Association (AMA) ruling last year that gender and sexual identities are not always binary.

The effort is aimed at reversing changes to federal programmes made by the Obama administration. Those reforms made gender a matter of individual choice rather than the sex designated at birth. A leaked memo from the Department of Health and Human Services said government agencies should adopt a definition of gender determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.”

[snip][end]

Let's see - you're ignoring the AMA and the medical community, and using bogus biological concepts, but what you're doing is 'grounded in science'?

So-called 'reparative therapy' and eugenics claimed to be 'grounded in science' also but were really pseudoscientific.

Besides erasing trans people from existence, this agenda has one other consequence. And it's odd - do they not get it? Defining gender based violence as "violence against women" ... well, while I agree that is the majority of domestic violence etc. ... domestic violence can be against men (rarer, but yes it does happen) and especially against male children/young boys ...


This is de-legitimization and disenfranchisement.

It also means second-class citizenship in the classic sense, where correct gender is recognized at the state level (for instance, in the cases of the several states offering gender markers on state IDs), but not the federal level. This is another one of this administration's impending train wrecks with reality.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:39 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
I thought I'd posted this in "Rightie Saw A Hashtag" when it was first reported, but I didn't. Hungary moved to ban gender studies from all universities. It went through today.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban bans gender studies programmes

Quote:
Hungary‘s far-right prime minister has banned gender studies programmes at universities – with his deputy arguing the area of study is an ideology rather than a science.

Viktor Orban, who has rejected the EU’s vision of liberal democracy, issued a decree to revoke accreditation and funding for gender studies programmes at the two universities that provide them in the central European country earlier in October.

“The government’s standpoint is that people are born either male or female, and we do not consider it acceptable for us to talk about socially constructed genders rather than biological sexes,” a spokesman for the prime minister said.

Amelie, who is lined up to do the gender studies course at Hungary’s prestigious Central European University (CEU) in Budapest, said she was dismayed the course had been banned.

“Last week, I met with one of my professors who said, ‘Bad luck for you, I have just seen that they have cancelled the programme’,” the 25-year-old told The Independent.

“I am very disappointed. It seems sad that professors will no longer share their tool set in gender and queer theory with students and are going to leave.”

...

“My lecturers at Utrecht are very upset about it all. We have close ties with the other gender studies departments internationally and within Europe. When you are teaching a course that has been demonised or thought less of, there is a feeling of sticking together. It is frightening for other departments as they hope there will not be a domino effect.


Some of the most ideological mofo's around are complaining that something else is a supposed "ideology"?

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:54 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120

Besides erasing trans people from existence, this agenda has one other consequence. And it's odd - do they not get it? Defining gender based violence as "violence against women" ... well, while I agree that is the majority of domestic violence etc. ... domestic violence can be against men (rarer, but yes it does happen) and especially against male children/young boys ...


Guess that one's for their priestly friends. :problem:

Conservatives would MUCH rather wring their hand about the "men in dresses" chimera in the bathroom than the men in cassocks and Geneva gowns. :problem:

263 San Francisco Bay Area priests branded sexual abusers in survivor's report - NBC News

Quote:
The attorney for a California clergy abuse survivor accused the leaders of three San Francisco Bay Area dioceses on Tuesday of engaging in an "institutional cover-up of an enormous magnitude" and released a list of 263 local priests whom they branded sexual predators.

The priests named in the 66-page report, compiled by the law firm of Jeff Anderson & Associates of St. Paul, Minnesota, are from the Archdiocese of San Francisco and the dioceses of Oakland and San Jose.

Anderson has sued all 11 dioceses in California on behalf of Tom Emens, 50, who has said he was 10 years old when a priest who died in 2002 repeatedly molested him.Earlier this month, he released a separate 120-page report on clerical sex abuse in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles that named more than 300 alleged clerical offenders.


Of course, what will be interesting about this as well is we'll hear nary a peep from the same people trashing Dr. Ford for "something that happend 4x years ago" or whatever. :problem:

The only thing social conservatism is capable of is generating concentric circles of misery on a grand scale.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:03 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12761
Location: Sunny South Florida
I'll tell you what is actual science.

1. Gender identity exists in your brain, not your genitalia, not your primary or secondary sexual characteristics.
2. I don't like, per se, the term "gender dysphoria" (which is identified as a disorder) but science knows it exists. You could view it as something to be "cured" much like "incorrect" sexual orientation but I wouldn't. Nonetheless, it exists.
3. We can debate the scientific-ity of social science but anybody saying there aren't societies with third, fourth, and maybe more genders is ignorant.
4. There is nothing scientific about pretending biologically intersex people don't exist.
5. It's obviously foolish to claim everything about gender behavior is rooted in your biology. Just to take the most notable example, nothing in your chromosomes or hormones is determining what is supposed to be the "appropriate" clothing for your gender.

I'm only using Klinger again because Internet photos of him from MASH are easy to find.

Image

Is he defying his biology or the norms of his society as a transvestite? What's unscientific about pointing out it's the latter?

That's the actual, determinative difference between "sex" and "gender". Should we pretend it doesn't exist? Some want to, apparently.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:14 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12761
Location: Sunny South Florida
The weird thing, religious conservatives' close to second favorite Bible bash passage seems to be this one.

Deuteronomy 22:5
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Now I always ask this question of my students. What IS "a man's clothing" or "women's clothing". BTW, should we go by how Israelites decided this 3000 years ago or by the standard of today.

So people will say, "Well a dress is women's clothing". K.

Is this guy wearing a "dress"? In Scotland, they call it a "kilt". Explain to me the difference, other than nomenclature?

Image

Up until recently, some said "women shouldn't wear pants". Well, today they do. I guess at one point that was "man's" clothing; now it's for both genders.

If we were honest, we might admit these standards change based on the society, including over time. Note, as I said, that above law/rule really doesn't clarify how it should be applied.

Making it useless, other than for mindless Bible-bashing. (Personal opinion: looks written by the Deuteronomist really to convince the Levites not to adopt the practices of Canaanite priests who engaged in ritual transvestitism.)

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Last edited by ProfessorX on Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:21 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
I'll tell you what is actual science.

1. Gender identity exists in your brain, not your genitalia, not your primary or secondary sexual characteristics.
2. I don't like, per se, the term "gender dysphoria" (which is identified as a disorder) but science knows it exists. You could view it as something to be "cured" much like "incorrect" sexual orientation but I wouldn't. Nonetheless, it exists.
3. We can debate the scientific-ity of social science but anybody saying there aren't societies with third, fourth, and maybe more genders is ignorant.
4. There is nothing scientific about pretending biologically intersex people don't exist.
5. It's obviously foolish to claim everything about gender behavior is rooted in your biology. Just to take the most notable example, nothing in your chromosomes or hormones is determining what is supposed to be the "appropriate" clothing for your gender.

I'm only using Klinger again because Internet photos of him from MASH are easy to find.

Image

Is he defying his biology or the norms of his society as a transvestite? What's unscientific about pointing out it's the latter?

That's the actual, determinative difference between "sex" and "gender". Should we pretend it doesn't exist? Some want to, apparently.


You'll like this (shhh don't tell Ike!)

#TransJusticeSyllabus - Sociologists for Trans Justice

Quote:
In society today, we are presented with a paradox of sorts: on one hand, there have been significant social and political advances regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. Yet, on the other hand, with increasing visibility and progress, there is also a simultaneous and almost inevitable increase in the backlash targeting the most vulnerable segments of the LGBTQ population–trans and non-binary people. In 2017 alone, the Human Rights Campaign has recorded at least 27 death of trans people in the United States due to fatal violence, making it the most violent year against trans people to date. It is also clear that trans violence and oppression disproportionately affects trans women of color, and that racism, sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia, and transphobia intersect in ways that shorten the lives of trans people (Spade 2015). Additionally, trans people experience social, economic, and political marginalization due to the lack of legal representation, barriers to gender-affirming healthcare, legal name and gender changes, physical spaces, and other seemingly neutral administrative systems that enforce narrow binary categories of gender and force people into them in order to get their basic needs met.

In 2016, Sociologists for Trans Justice (S4TJ) was founded by Drs. Eric Anthony Grollman and Laurel Westbrook to organize for justice for trans and non-binary communities through and within sociology. One of the chief aims of Sociologists for Trans Justice is to advance public understanding of trans and non-binary issues – in particular, to enter sociological insights into the national conversation about the status of trans and non-binary communities.


The syllabus: http://www.transjusticesyllabus.com/wp- ... llabus.pdf

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:55 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
National Center for Transgender Equality also has a really good FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions about Transgender People

And also a good legal services page

Trans Legal Services Network Directory

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:01 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
4. There is nothing scientific about pretending biologically intersex people don't exist.


'Erasure of an entire group': intersex people fear Trump anti-trans memo - Guardian

Quote:
It took decades for Anunnaki Ray Marquez to accept himself. Then, on 17 September 2018, the state of Colorado accepted him, too, issuing a new birth certificate that said he was “intersex”, meaning born with a mix of what are considered male and female sex characteristics.

It was a “huge, gigantic, momentous” event in the 50-year-old’s life, finally an official government document recognizing his existence. But the celebration was short-lived.

This week, a leaked Trump administration memo suggested that the US government was working to define sex as “either male or female” and “determined by the genitals that a person is born with”, the New York Times reported. The move represents an extraordinary attack on transgender people, seeking to in effect reject their identities and deny them the most basic recognition, protections and rights. Entirely missing from the breaking news report on the memo, however, was intersex people, whose lives would also be fundamentally at odds with the scientifically erroneous definitions of sex, biology and gender that Trump is pursuing.

Trump wants to deny my trans identity – and erase years of progress

“Every single thing that I fought for would be taken away from me,” said Marquez, who lives in Jacksonville, Florida. “People with power and control are dictating and stigmatizing you with labels that aren’t true.”

Intersex people are highly misunderstood, neglected and underrepresented in public life, even though they make up an estimated 1.7% of people worldwide – in line with the rates of redheads or people with green eyes. The term intersex (the “i” in LGBTQIA) refers to people born with reproductive or sexual anatomies that don’t fit typical definitions of male or female, meaning they can have variations in chromosomes, genitals, internal organs and other characteristics.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:54 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
The weird thing, religious conservatives' close to second favorite Bible bash passage seems to be this one.

Deuteronomy 22:5
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Now I always ask this question of my students. What IS "a man's clothing" or "women's clothing". BTW, should we go by how Israelites decided this 3000 years ago or by the standard of today.

So people will say, "Well a dress is women's clothing". K.

Is this guy wearing a "dress"? In Scotland, they call it a "kilt". Explain to me the difference, other than nomenclature?

Image

Up until recently, some said "women shouldn't wear pants". Well, today they do. I guess at one point that was "man's" clothing; now it's for both genders.

If we were honest, we might admit these standards change based on the society, including over time. Note, as I said, that above law/rule really doesn't clarify how it should be applied.

Making it useless, other than for mindless Bible-bashing. (Personal opinion: looks written by the Deuteronomist really to convince the Levites not to adopt the practices of Canaanite priests who engaged in ritual transvestitism.)
Yeah...Basically you're correct about this. Rambam pointed out the same thing, I believe. Although the sages found other reasons as well...ie to discourage promiscuity and to discourage women from going into battle. (Artscroll commentary) In terms of dress, generally, people are supposed to dress 'appropriately' and 'modestly.' But as you point out, even among the observant the standards change over time. 'Cross dressing,' of course is not the same as transgender.

It's pretty clear that people are still learning what this means and how to react. Religious observance (sorry religion bashers) doesn't mean ignoring science.

As for those who like to look at that one sentence, without context....well, what can you expect. Most of them are also ignoring what comes before and after that cherry picked sentence. Concern for the property of others, that one specifically is required to protect others from financial loss, that we are required to avoid doing things that would destroy a species....or a few sentences later that one should wear fringes (tzitzit) on certain clothing. So for those 'thumpers' who cherry pick what they want to quote and look at and ignore so much else...I suspect it really has little to do with the Bible itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
SF mayor issues transgender directive - Bay Area Reporter

Quote:
San Francisco Mayor London Breed Thursday morning ordered all city agencies and departments that collect demographic data to update their forms, both paper and electronic, so that they include the option of nonbinary in addition to male and female when asking about gender identity.

The mayoral directive, which took effect immediately, also ordered that the forms expand on title options beyond Mr. and Ms. and include additional choices for pronouns other than just she/her/hers and he/him/his. The forms must also include a line for a person's chosen name and use gender-neutral labels such as "parent/guardian" instead of "father" and "mother."

The order by Breed came in response to media reports earlier this week that the Trump administration is preparing a proposal to limit the identification of a person's gender to include only "male" or "female" that is listed at birth.

"Identity is complex and personal," Breed noted at the start of the directive, a copy of which was given to the Bay Area Reporter Wednesday. "Too often, transgender and gender-nonconforming communities are forced to make choices on City and County of San Francisco forms and applications which do not accurately reflect their identity or gender expression. We know that narrow gender definitions of either male or female are not sufficient to recognize the diverse experiences of our communities."

As the B.A.R. detailed in a three-part series last summer, six city departments began using forms in 2017 that asked questions about sexual orientation and gender identity, SOGI for short, due to a law implemented by city leaders. LGBT advocates had pressed for the collection of such data to gain better insight into the health needs and other issues confronting the LGBT community.

The information, they argued, was needed in order to ensure there was adequate funding for programs and services that address the needs of the LGBT community. State lawmakers followed suit by also ordering a number of California departments and agencies focused on health care and social services to begin collecting SOGI data as of this July. Additional state agencies will begin asking the SOGI questions on their forms next year.

In her directive, Breed noted that the San Francisco sheriff's office has also "taken the lead in expanding self-identification of gender identity, by allowing individuals to self-identify, and has instituted gender awareness training as an integral part of its practices."

As part of her directive, Breed ordered the city's Department of Human Resources and the Office of Transgender Initiatives to provide gender identity trainings to city employees as part of their required trainings on harassment prevention, implicit bias, and cross-cultural communications.

The city has adopted various policies to promote "inclusionary practices," noted Breed. "However, to be truly effective, we must strive to practice inclusivity at all times and to assure that everyone can live as their authentic self. Something that may appear to be a single city application or form, but does not account for the full range of self-identifiers, can trigger an emotionally stressful experience for individuals who do not fall into narrow, pre-set identity categories."

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:59 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
another approach might be to not ask gender at all. or only ask in very specific instances? not base any decisions on this. What might be the impact? (maybe public health issues?, maybe public safety issues?) Minority/specific groups tend to like to be counted...so there is likely to be political implications as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:44 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12761
Location: Sunny South Florida
Although the sages found other reasons as well...ie to discourage promiscuity and to discourage women from going into battle.


Queen Boadicea, Joan of Arc, and the women now serving in combat in the U.S. military have an opinion on this.

BTW, didn't Deborah the Judge lead Israelite troops into battle?

I know it's not canonical, but Judith definitely used a sword to behead Holofernes in the Book of Judith.

Quote:
'Cross dressing,' of course is not the same as transgender.


So: as Carmen's article above makes clear,
a) people can be gender nonconforming but still have a normative gender identity. Transvestites might wear clothing considered appropriate to the other gender but see themselves as belonging to the "expected" one. Klinger never thought of himself as female. He was just trying to get thrown out of the military. Transvestitism or "cross dressing" is just one of the most easily visible forms of gender nonconforming behavior, as others might be more subtle.
b) "transgender" people are usually not just gender nonconforming, but often have a gender identity that is non-normative. IOW, they appear to people as bio-male, but not only might "dress" "female" but view themselves as being "female'. However, this is, as that article makes clear, NOT ALWAYS THE CASE, either. Also, sometimes they simply see themselves as "non binary" or outside of "the male/female binary system".

Quote:
Religious observance (sorry religion bashers) doesn't mean ignoring science.


To be clear on this point, I have no problem with people who are observant and who feel they must follow Deuteronomy 22:5 and make that choice for themselves. It's their life.

The people I am calling "Bible bashers" are people who "bash" trans people with that Biblical passage. BTW, for the most part, they are not observant Jews, those people are usually insufferable Christians.

And I agree with you, they tend to ignore a lot of passages that are even right before or after that one.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:55 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120

Queen Boadicea, Joan of Arc, and the women now serving in combat in the U.S. military have an opinion on this.

BTW, didn't Deborah the Judge lead Israelite troops into battle?

I know it's not canonical, but Judith definitely used a sword to behead Holofernes in the Book of Judith.



So: as Carmen's article above makes clear,
a) people can be gender nonconforming but still have a normative gender identity. Transvestites might wear clothing considered appropriate to the other gender but see themselves as belonging to the "expected" one. Klinger never thought of himself as female. He was just trying to get thrown out of the military. Transvestitism or "cross dressing" is just one of the most easily visible forms of gender nonconforming behavior, as others might be more subtle.
b) "transgender" people are usually not just gender nonconforming, but often have a gender identity that is non-normative. IOW, they appear to people as bio-male, but not only might "dress" "female" but view themselves as being "female'. However, this is, as that article makes clear, NOT ALWAYS THE CASE, either. Also, sometimes they simply see themselves as "non binary" or outside of "the male/female binary system".


Yes this gets into the most recent scholarship and activism, which includes a gender expression distinction.

Britannica has a pretty good explanation.

Transgender: gender identity

Quote:
Various theories of gender have been proposed as explanations of the experience of transgender persons. In addition to the concepts of sex and gender, those of gender identity and gender expression are particularly important for such theories. Gender identity refers to a person’s self-identification as male or female or as something in between or outside of those categories. Gender expression refers to the behaviour through which one expresses one’s gender identity—e.g., by using certain pronouns or wearing certain kinds of clothing or having a particular hairstyle. Whereas gender identity is not something that others can view, gender expression is publicly visible.

The main theories of gender are essentialism, social constructionism, and performativity. Essentialists place emphasis on biological characteristics, arguing that a person’s gender identity is fixed at birth, whether or not it corresponds to biological sex. Essentialism is thus opposed to the view that gender identity is entirely socially constructed—i.e., a product of social or societal influences. The central case in need of explanation, according to essentialists, is that of persons who report having always (for as long as they can remember) felt that they belonged to the sex opposite the one that they were assigned at birth. Such experiences are typical of transsexuals, who feel the need to change their sex to match the gender identity they feel they have always had.

Social constructionism, as the term suggests, is the view that gender is socially constructed. That gender is socially constructed is shown, according to constructionists, by the fact that the traits and behaviours traditionally associated with the male or female sex have varied over time and across cultures, which would not be the case if gender were innate. It is important to note that essentialism and social constructivism, as those theories are defined in this article, are not necessarily inconsistent, insofar as they aim to explain different (though obviously related) things: the one concerns the supposed biological origin of gender identity (one’s self-identification as male or female), the other the supposed social or societal origin of gender (the traits and behaviours that make up the masculine or the feminine). It is entirely possible that the former is innate and the latter largely, if not entirely, learned, in the broad sense of being instilled.

As to sex, some social constructivists claim that it too is not biologically given but rather pronounced by medical professionals whose role it is to place infants into one or the other category at birth. A prominent defender of that view is the American philosopher Judith Butler, who is also known as a developer of the performative theory of gender.

An extension of social constructivism is the performative theory, or performativity, which holds that gender is a “performance” that people undertake on a daily basis, even if only unconsciously. In particular, gender is not the expression of an underlying essence or nature, whether based on sex or on gender identity. It is rather a series of acts whose constant repetition creates the illusion that an underlying nature exists. According to Butler, gender “is performatively constituted by the very ‘expressions’ that are said to be its results.”


Some of this is generational. Queer theory, which is now starting to show it's (and our!) age, is out of the early-mid 90s as a result of the earlier JB writings, actually on performativity. Performativity theory really blew the top off of both social constructionism which had already blown the top off of essentialism.

What we're seeing right now is a return to essentialist ideas of gender, which is why we'll find TERF and old-school lesbian feminism throwing in with the Trump admin definitions.

In fact, a very indignant evolutionary bio guy just got hot under the collar with me on Facebook, insisting that these new proposed stipulations are "good for women". DJT claims he's "protecting the country". From what, he never said; but I am guessing it has to do with those "men in dresses in women's bathrooms" that guys like the kernel even ran to essentialist feminism to take as a jumping off point for bashing trans women, specifically. :problem:

It's worth noting that British essentialist-style feminists are among the most notorious in their "gender-critial" feminism, which sees trans theory and trans persons as an existential threat. They are really not down with concepts like gender expression. They've got fairly deep roots. :? :problem:

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:14 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12761
Location: Sunny South Florida
another approach might be to not ask gender at all. or only ask in very specific instances? not base any decisions on this. What might be the impact? (maybe public health issues?, maybe public safety issues?) Minority/specific groups tend to like to be counted...so there is likely to be political implications as well.


It's interesting, this was the idea floated by the anti-affirmative action AA guy, forget his name, he said the way to solve racism in America was simply to remove any mention of race, or any request for race, on any applications or government forms. In essence, make the category disappear.

Dunno. I'm not of the "stop talking about it and it goes away" viewpoint. First off. If we delete the race box on every form, does that mean people are still going to stop seeing it in you physically and stop reacting to it in interpersonal interactions? That in other ways it will stop affecting your life if no one asks for it on a document?

The problem is, how do we measure social problems without a box for categorizing them? How do I know how many people are affected by racism in America if we stop asking what race they are on the census and other government forms? And secondly, well this might not matter as much if you oppose affirmative action, but how can we do affirmative action if we don't know who belongs to what historically disadvantaged minority groups?

I don't think making identity categories go away solves their problems. And stopping discussion of identity categories that are problematic, makes the problem go away.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:26 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12761
Location: Sunny South Florida
It's worth noting that British essentialist-style feminists are among the most notorious in their "gender-critial" feminism, which sees trans theory and trans persons as an existential threat. They are really not down with concepts like gender expression. They've got fairly deep roots. :? :problem:


I always remember the story of the two transwomen who were forbidden to attend the Michigan Womyn's (sic) Festival in the 90s because they were "born male". (One was even fully transsexual, I believe.) Silly essentialism.

The problem I have with the performativity theory is really addressed by the article. The problem is it makes it seems like people are just lying and being sneaky. Those guys in dresses are just faking and pretending so they can get in the women's bathroom and rape the girls. Like the kernel thought. As long as we recognize two matters --

a) most of this performance is unconscious rather than conscious and deliberately dramatic (I also feel this way about how Goffman describes a lot of social behavior/identity/life as "performance" - he makes this caveat) -- not everybody is a drag queen, voguing it.
b) that people are always judged for nonconforming behavior, and gender nonconformity quickly and frequently runs into social forces of opposition ... that's the role of society in modulating this. You might be performing, but society is going to react.

Anyway, yes, that article explains better than I did that we need to separate gender IDENTITY (self-concept) from EXPRESSION (behavior).

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:21 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120

I always remember the story of the two transwomen who were forbidden to attend the Michigan Womyn's (sic) Festival in the 90s because they were "born male". (One was even fully transsexual, I believe.) Silly essentialism.


People came to blows over it; I remember it quite well. In the earlier days, bands split up over it, relationships ended over it. We young people got kicked out of youth programs because we defnded our trans friends who had no one and would get kicked out of these groups.

It's one of the things that really solidified my calling myself "queer" and nearly dropping out of LGBT-much of anything. It wasn't until 2008 that the Dyke March in my city "allowed" trans women. I still don't go (but these days, mainly because it, like most of Pride, is way too crowded.)

And for myself, as you know, I'd already left absolutist, binary thinking in the form of rightwing Evangelicalism. Bt;dt: no thanks.

If you want to see a show that really captures that time, and that revolves around trans women, but in Manhattan/NYC, see Pose. https://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/pose Very well done show.

Quote:
The problem I have with the performativity theory is really addressed by the article. The problem is it makes it seems like people are just lying and being sneaky. Those guys in dresses are just faking and pretending so they can get in the women's bathroom and rape the girls. Like the kernel thought. As long as we recognize two matters --

a) most of this performance is unconscious rather than conscious and deliberately dramatic (I also feel this way about how Goffman describes a lot of social behavior/identity/life as "performance" - he makes this caveat) -- not everybody is a drag queen, voguing it.
b) that people are always judged for nonconforming behavior, and gender nonconformity quickly and frequently runs into social forces of opposition ... that's the role of society in modulating this. You might be performing, but society is going to react.


It did help a lot of us figure out our or at least articulate our own experiences in the world (the newer gender and sexuality spectrums do that for me, today.) If anybody knows there is a social and often quite corporeal/material price to pay for poor performance or too-campy performance or suspiciously inauthentic performance, it's the queers.

But also, for people like me, it was theory and a part of being educated. Something to read, not necessarily something to take on as a personal belief.

It's said there is a current danger of the new binary becoming trans/cis. I can see some merit in that, but I also see that it's an effect of cis person's resistance to what they think is an identity being imposed on them.

I tell them: that's feeling's just a phase that will pass. :ugeek: :geek: :ugeek: :geek: :D :twisted: :) :ugeek:

Quote:
Anyway, yes, that article explains better than I did that we need to separate gender IDENTITY (self-concept) from EXPRESSION (behavior).


Well, there's a lot to it, with loose consensus right now.

You've got the Bullybloggers, some of whom are senior scholars and A-listers, now; a bunch of asexuality spectrum identities that simply didn't exists 5 years ago; the QTPOC (Queer and Trans People of Color) kids who (pretty much rightly) see them as the olds; 4th-wavers, new designations like SOGI/SOGIE which are very useful for 20-character anagrams in our Twitterfied world; the people STILL mad at us for using the word "queer", the Dworkin/MacKinnonites that are still with us...oh the list goes on.

It's fun.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Last edited by carmenjonze on Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:49 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 17960
Location: The blue parts of the map
Excellent, illuminating description from someone who's been there. Thanks, Carmen.

The government can make words go away, and I can think of several instances where they did just that. Very Orwellian of them. It won't work as long as people keep using the words or ones similar, to keep the conceptual framework.

_________________
"Our democratic institutions... seem to have been upended by frat-boy billionaires from California," remarked Canadian politician Charlie Angus. (BBC, 11/27/18)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:59 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
Why federal recognition helps at the state level. And why federal dis-recognition harms at the state level.

This is why in civil rights, second-class citizenship is not only a societal failure, it's untenable and makes for a schizto country.

North Carolina officials cut off benefits to transgender individuals - NC Policy Watch

Quote:
At first, his parents didn’t fully understand why these changes made such a difference, but they also didn’t care.

“We had our child back,” Connor’s mother said. “We were just so grateful.”

With the help of doctors and therapists, Connor and his family came to understand gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness. The American Psychiatric Association defines it as “a conflict between a person’s physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify.”

More than 40 years of research into and treatment of transgender people experiencing dysphoria has led psychiatric and medical professionals to conclude the most effective course of treatment is gender transition — aligning one’s life socially and sometimes physically to better match their gender identity. Not all transgender people choose to medically transition, but for those for whom it is judged necessary, medical experts agree that it can be life-saving.

Connor legally changed his name and began a social transition, a period of fully living as a young man rather than a young woman.

Together Connor, his doctors, his therapist and his parents agreed medically transitioning was a necessary next step. He had six months of therapy to confirm that before he began a course of testosterone and underwent “top surgery” — a double mastectomy to remove the breasts he was binding uncomfortably at all times except when he bathed.

None of this was cheap. But Connor’s parents were both state employees. They had decent health insurance.

In 2017, as the family planned Connor’s transition, the State Employee Health Plan covered treatment related to gender dysphoria. Indeed, that was the first coverage year in which the plan extended that coverage to transgender people — a move taken to stay in line with federal anti-discrimination policies finalized in May of that year.

But on January 1, 2018 — one day before Conner’s first appointment to begin hormone therapy — that coverage ended.

The medical community’s position had not changed.

The State Treasurer and the State Health Plan Board of Trustees had.

The intrusion of politics, the exclusion of transgender people

State Treasurer Dale Folwell, a conservative Republican and former state lawmaker, made his position on transgender health care coverage clear as he was coming into office in 2016.

He opposed the coverage of transgender health procedures — approved before he was elected — as an unnecessary expense.

“I pledged to the people of North Carolina that we would reduce the state health plan’s 32 billion dollar debt, provide a more affordable family premium especially for our lowest paid employees and provide transparency to the taxpayers,” Folwell said in an email to The News & Observer at the end of 2016, as he was about to take office. “The provision to pay for sex change operations does none of those three things.”

“Sex change operation” is not a term used by medical professionals treating transgender people, insurance companies or the LGBTQ community. It is widely considered offensive both because of its technical inaccuracy and because a wide array of procedures — not just one operation — are utilized in gender transition.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina, which administers the State Employee Health Plan, recognizes that. It has, since 2011, recognized dysphoria as a serious medical issue and covered treatments related to transition, including hormone therapy and gender confirmation surgery.


More in link

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:06 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
Excellent, illuminating description from someone who's been there. Thanks, Carmen.


Been around a few blocks.

Lol too few to mention.

Quote:
The government can make words go away, and I can think of several instances where they did just that. Very Orwellian of them. It won't work as long as people keep using the words or ones similar, to keep the conceptual framework.


Yes and I think these measures are twofold: 1- to get the foot in the door for rescinding all of civil rights like they've been wanting to do since gay liberation and 2nd wave feminism, and 2- starting by completely crushing one of the most socially-vulnerable groups in the country.

I do think they underestimate the force of how just much pushback they are bringing on themselves.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:38 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12761
Location: Sunny South Florida
This is why in civil rights, second-class citizenship is not only a societal failure, it's untenable and makes for a schizto country.


It's why I never supported this "let's have civil unions for teh gayz because we can't call it marriage." Yes, we can and did, thank you Obgerfell, and the way most of those civil union statutes were written, it seems that civil unions carried fewer of the legal benefits of actual marriage - maybe by design.

No, same rights and benefits for everybody.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: marindem, Sam Lefthand and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group