[Continuation] [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5) - Page 38

Butter! · 19th January 2021, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by cullennz

I'm hoping you didn't expect everyone one else outside your company to have to make the same effort.

Butter! · 19th January 2021, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I started out with this view, in good faith. I've since back-tracked on it. Mostly because it leaves me and other adult human females without a term with which to reference ourselves while retaining our humanity.

But also... because "stag" isn't a feeling in the head of an adult male deer, nor is "mare" a feeling in the head of an adult female horse. A "hen" isn't an identity, nor is a "bull".

Other parts of my views are becoming less progressive as well. For example, I've come to think that drag queens are highly offensive. Drag shows are essentially minstrel shows... only instead of "blackface", they're putting on "womanface" and performing the worst and most regressive stereotypes as entertainment.

I've seen a number of drag shows over the years, and in my early twenties, I also hung out with a drag troupe (and even had a small role in one of their shows once). This probably isn't something I'm supposed to say, but I personally have noticed that drag performed by straight men or trans lesbians often seems much more misogynistic at the roots than drag performed by gay men. I don't really know why that is, and my sample set has been very small, so it could even be a coincidence.

The gay drag performers I've known always seemed to be laughing at themselves and fashion culture and gender roles overall, not so much at women and girls. But I don't know, and like I said, I'm probably not even supposed to think stuff like that. It's just something I kind of noticed along the way. If I had to guess, I'd say it has to do with the performers' socialization growing up.

My info is outdated, regardless. I haven't seen a drag show or been around drag in a decade.

Butter! · 19th January 2021, 03:22 PM

Oh crap, I said "trans lesbians" in my post above, when what I meant was "trans gay men." ****, that's a pretty bad slip. I apologize. I was at work and trying to post on the sly, which is a good setting for one-liners, not thoughtful posts. Please excuse me. Seriously, I did not mean to do that, and it's not indicative of my inner thoughts. I was just distracted and got confused, because I'm dumb.

Rolfe · 19th January 2021, 04:06 PM

Don't apologise. Too many women being shamed into issuing grovelling apologies for saying something deemed to be out of turn. Let's not go there.

Louden Wilde · 19th January 2021, 04:57 PM

Interesting tweet from "Fair Play for Women", A UK org

Here's the start of the long-ish thread:
Tonight the @BBCRadio4 documentary 'File On Four' made the claim that growing numbers of women are sexually abusing children. The data cannot be used to show this because police no longer record a perpetrator sex. They now record self-identified gender. The BBC claims “Between 2015 and 2019, the numbers of reported cases of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse to police in England and Wales rose from 1,249 to 2,297 – an increase of 84%.“ The vast majority of child sexual abuse is committed by the male sex. The Crime Survey for England and Wales revealed 96% of adults asked about their experiences of child sexual abuse said it involved a male perpetrator. It is unusual for a lone perpetrator to be female. A similar trend is seen in police crime reports. In the year up to March 2019 there were 73260 reports of child sexual abuse. The BBC says over same time period there were 2297 reports of CSA in which the perpetrator was recorded as female; representing just 3% of all reports. Are more women really committing child sexual abuse?
The answer is we simply don’t know. It’s impossible to make this claim from the data available. For starters, we don’t know if there has been a general increase in reporting of CSA or if this is an increase specific to females only. ONS notes that “police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics” and “comparisons should not be made between years".

Sherkeu · 19th January 2021, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Butter!

Oh crap, I said "trans lesbians" in my post above, when what I meant was "trans gay men." ****, that's a pretty bad slip. I apologize. I was at work and trying to post on the sly, which is a good setting for one-liners, not thoughtful posts. Please excuse me. Seriously, I did not mean to do that, and it's not indicative of my inner thoughts. I was just distracted and got confused, because I'm dumb.

I thought I understood your first post as both groups being people born as male and both attracted to women....
... but now I'm not sure if you mean a gay man who is performing as a trans woman or a person born female (and now a trans man) performing as a man who is attracted to men.

I suppose it is because the word 'gay' can refer to either sex.

Perhaps there are not many trans women who are attracted to women who do drag. ??

Meadmaker · 19th January 2021, 08:06 PM

trans gay men? That would be biological females who identify as male, are attracted to males? And if they are doing drag, that would mean a biological female dressing as a woman, even though he identifies as a man?

ETA: I think that first part should be biological females who identify as males but are attracted to men, not necessarily to males, because the males might be women, and if the trans men are gay they wouldn't be attracted to women.

Butter! · 20th January 2021, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I thought I understood your first post as both groups being people born as male and both attracted to women....
... but now I'm not sure if you mean a gay man who is performing as a trans woman or a person born female (and now a trans man) performing as a man who is attracted to men.

I suppose it is because the word 'gay' can refer to either sex.

Perhaps there are not many trans women who are attracted to women who do drag. ??

Yeah, sorry. I was referring to gay trans men, as in people born female who identify as male and are attracted to men. The few I have known (and it's only 3, so again, small sample size - also, this was deep back in the day, as I mentioned) - they seemed to frequently go out of their way to be sort of misogynistic, usually in joking ways of course, but still. I always thought it was their way of distancing themselves from their unwanted birth sex.

And yes, some drag shows would often go out of their way to be confusing in that sense. Like men dressed as women dressed as men, stuff like that. I think a number of those people were the types who would identify as non-binary now, but back then I really don't remember that term being around.

Emily's Cat · 20th January 2021, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Maybe a good place to start addressing your reactionary incomprehension might be...... to actually try to seek out Izzard's own understanding of her condition. After all, she's a very articulate and apparently very intelligent person. Or would you prefer to keep labelling her with your own bigoted interpretations?

Eddie Izzard hasn't requested a name change and has stated no intention of undergoing any sort of hormonal or surgical treatment.

In the past, Izzard has referred to themself as a transvestite - that's their own label. Now, Izzard refers to themself as a transwoman. The only thing that has changed is the label that they themselves are using.

There is literally no other difference here.

So... where's the "bigotry" that you're busy judging me for?

SuburbanTurkey · 20th January 2021, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Eddie Izzard hasn't requested a name change and has stated no intention of undergoing any sort of hormonal or surgical treatment.

In the past, Izzard has referred to themself as a transvestite - that's their own label. Now, Izzard refers to themself as a transwoman. The only thing that has changed is the label that they themselves are using.

There is literally no other difference here.

So... where's the "bigotry" that you're busy judging me for?

That's the only thing that has changed, to your eye, in the past few decades?

You honestly can't think of any reason why someone might have identified as transvestite years ago, and as as transwoman now? You can't see why growing acceptance of trans people might change the way someone might view themselves and present themselves to the world?

You are, generally speaking, aware of the concept of being "closeted", right?

"Why didn't this person refer to themselves as a trans woman back when doing so would have had missive social stigma attached to it?" is an absurd criticism.

Next you're going to tell me you're shocked that the two "roommates" of 30 years are actually gay men!

Ziggurat · 20th January 2021, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

You are, generally speaking, aware of the concept of being "closeted", right?

"Why didn't this person refer to themselves as a trans woman back when doing so would have had missive social stigma attached to it?" is an absurd criticism.

Next you're going to tell me you're shocked that the two "roommates" of 30 years are actually gay men!

Imagine two roommates who kiss each other on the lips in public. Are they closeted? No, they are not.

I don't pay any attention to Izzard, so I cannot speak to the accuracy of this. But Emily explicitly stated that nothing about Izzard's behavior has changed. If that is correct (and I have no knowledge either way), that's a pretty strong indicator that there is no closet involved here, at least not one that Izzard has actually come out of. The whole point of coming out of the closet isn't to get people to change the labels they apply to you, it's so that you can act publicly the way you want to act instead of putting up a fake front. There's no point in "coming out" if you already act the way you want to OR you continue to put up a fake front.

Emily's Cat · 20th January 2021, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Butter!

I've seen a number of drag shows over the years, and in my early twenties, I also hung out with a drag troupe (and even had a small role in one of their shows once). This probably isn't something I'm supposed to say, but I personally have noticed that drag performed by straight men or trans lesbians often seems much more misogynistic at the roots than drag performed by gay men. I don't really know why that is, and my sample set has been very small, so it could even be a coincidence.

The gay drag performers I've known always seemed to be laughing at themselves and fashion culture and gender roles overall, not so much at women and girls. But I don't know, and like I said, I'm probably not even supposed to think stuff like that. It's just something I kind of noticed along the way. If I had to guess, I'd say it has to do with the performers' socialization growing up.

My info is outdated, regardless. I haven't seen a drag show or been around drag in a decade.

You're allowed to think - and say - whatever the hell you want. There's a chance that someone may be offended by what you say, but nobody has a right to not be offended.

Additionally, women being conditioned to feel that they're not allowed to think that their situations are screwed up is a component of why women are still treated as unequal throughout the otherwise developed world.

Emily's Cat · 20th January 2021, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Louden Wilde

Interesting tweet from "Fair Play for Women", A UK org

Here's the start of the long-ish thread:
Tonight the @BBCRadio4 documentary 'File On Four' made the claim that growing numbers of women are sexually abusing children. The data cannot be used to show this because police no longer record a perpetrator sex. They now record self-identified gender. The BBC claims “Between 2015 and 2019, the numbers of reported cases of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse to police in England and Wales rose from 1,249 to 2,297 – an increase of 84%.“ The vast majority of child sexual abuse is committed by the male sex. The Crime Survey for England and Wales revealed 96% of adults asked about their experiences of child sexual abuse said it involved a male perpetrator. It is unusual for a lone perpetrator to be female. A similar trend is seen in police crime reports. In the year up to March 2019 there were 73260 reports of child sexual abuse. The BBC says over same time period there were 2297 reports of CSA in which the perpetrator was recorded as female; representing just 3% of all reports. Are more women really committing child sexual abuse?
The answer is we simply don’t know. It’s impossible to make this claim from the data available. For starters, we don’t know if there has been a general increase in reporting of CSA or if this is an increase specific to females only. ONS notes that “police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics” and “comparisons should not be made between years".

That's one of the concerns I voiced a while back with respect to the Trans Agenda. Referring to criminals - especially in cases of sexual aggression and domestic violence - by their preferred gender provides cover for the continuation of crimes that disproportionately harm women and children, committed by males. It masks the pattern of male violence, and gives the false impression that females are committing more crimes of this sort.

Butter! · 20th January 2021, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

You're allowed to think - and say - whatever the hell you want. There's a chance that someone may be offended by what you say, but nobody has a right to not be offended.

Additionally, women being conditioned to feel that they're not allowed to think that their situations are screwed up is a component of why women are still treated as unequal throughout the otherwise developed world.

I worded that poorly. I didn't really mean it in the sense of "thoughtcrime." I just often catch myself thinking uncharitable things, so I try to be aware that there could be more to a situation than what I'm seeing.

Butter! · 20th January 2021, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That's one of the concerns I voiced a while back with respect to the Trans Agenda. Referring to criminals - especially in cases of sexual aggression and domestic violence - by their preferred gender provides cover for the continuation of crimes that disproportionately harm women and children, committed by males. It masks the pattern of male violence, and gives the false impression that females are committing more crimes of this sort.

Yeah, this is one that concerned me too, and it's what I was referring to when I listed "statistics" as one of the reasons I object to the redefinition of sex (again, not talking about gender - it seems necessary to clarify in the context of this discussion).

I understand that the argument can be made that trans women are women, and therefore the statistics would be correct, but that position doesn't seem like a very strong one when we're specifically talking about sex crimes that require certain "equipment" to commit (or to fall victim to). That's a precise area where genitals really do matter, I think. Furthermore, self-ID could present problems of extreme (and possibly even deliberate) statistical confusion.

These aren't bigoted statements. The world is a big place, and it's really hard to find ways to balance everyone's rights and desires. Discussion is needed.

ETA - Of course, if we had 4 categories instead of 2, then it could work. Male gender/male sex, female gender/female sex, male gender/female sex, female gender/male sex. If crime rates were reported that way, then it doesn't seem as though there wouldn't be a problem.

Ziggurat · 20th January 2021, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That's one of the concerns I voiced a while back with respect to the Trans Agenda. Referring to criminals - especially in cases of sexual aggression and domestic violence - by their preferred gender provides cover for the continuation of crimes that disproportionately harm women and children, committed by males. It masks the pattern of male violence, and gives the false impression that females are committing more crimes of this sort.

Titania McGrath strikes again:

"Given that women are woefully underrepresented in the prison population, a male criminal choosing to identify as female can only be a good thing."

Emily's Cat · 20th January 2021, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

That's the only thing that has changed, to your eye, in the past few decades?

You honestly can't think of any reason why someone might have identified as transvestite years ago, and as as transwoman now? You can't see why growing acceptance of trans people might change the way someone might view themselves and present themselves to the world?

You are, generally speaking, aware of the concept of being "closeted", right?

"Why didn't this person refer to themselves as a trans woman back when doing so would have had missive social stigma attached to it?" is an absurd criticism.

Next you're going to tell me you're shocked that the two "roommates" of 30 years are actually gay men!

Izzard was pretty open about his penchant for wearing women's clothing and make-up. There only closet involved is the one in which he kept his dresses. He did an entire comedy special dressed in a very flattering chinese-styled dress.

At the end of the day, Izzard is a penis-bearing adult male who dresses in clothing traditionally assumed to be worn by females of the species, and who adorns their face with make-up traditionally assumed to be used by females of the species. Izzard has stated no intention of undergoing any hormone therapy, nor of having any surgery at all.

The only difference is literally the label being used... and that NOW a pile of people would jump at the chance to demand that Izzard (who is sexually attracted to females) should have unfettered access to all women's spaces on the basis of his self-proclamation that he is now a woman.

I think Izzard is a great person. Funny and charismatic. But there's LITERALLY no difference between Izzard's prior behavior and comportment and Izzard's current behavior and comportment.

But somehow, with Izzard's claim to a specific label, the entire rest of humanity is expected to THINK differently about him, and to PRETEND that there's no difference between him and any other female person.

It's absurd to think that a personal proclamation dictates an obligation to the rest of society.

Emily's Cat · 20th January 2021, 12:18 PM

I love the term "gender lysenkoism".

Emily's Cat · 20th January 2021, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Butter!

I worded that poorly. I didn't really mean it in the sense of "thoughtcrime." I just often catch myself thinking uncharitable things, so I try to be aware that there could be more to a situation than what I'm seeing.

I get you. But you're still allowed to think and say uncharitable things. Acknowledging that it's speculation is fine. Just don't fall into the trap of falsely pretending that women are supposed to always be nice and supportive and think kind thoughts.

theprestige · 20th January 2021, 12:34 PM

I've become a trans-activism-phobe.

Rolfe · 20th January 2021, 05:37 PM

There's a lot of it about.

In related news a young idiot who calls himself Teddy has flounced off from the SNP with loud complaints about the party being riddled with transphobia. I see he's shaved off his beard recently but he still looks like a guy. This appears to be his reaction to the forces of rationality having managed to win some places in the governing body of the party at the last internal elections. The First Minister and Justice Secretary (and quite a few more of the inner circle) are still as woke as hell and hell-bent on railroading the self-ID and the "hate speech" legislation through. But that's not enough for Teddy, no gender critical voices should be heard at all or he'll throw a hissy fit. Good riddance I say.

But on his way out he announced that trans SNP members were being physically and sexually assaulted by other SNP members. I don't know if he can be held to account for these lies though.

Elaedith · 21st January 2021, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That's one of the concerns I voiced a while back with respect to the Trans Agenda. Referring to criminals - especially in cases of sexual aggression and domestic violence - by their preferred gender provides cover for the continuation of crimes that disproportionately harm women and children, committed by males. It masks the pattern of male violence, and gives the false impression that females are committing more crimes of this sort.

Interesting thread on this from Prof Alice Sullivan

SuburbanTurkey · 21st January 2021, 05:27 AM

Transphobes take another L, Biden issues executive order rolling back Trump-era trans discrimination and further plans to expand antidiscrimination policies through the legislature as part of his first 100 days.

https://www.advocate.com/politics/20...discrimination

Rolfe · 21st January 2021, 05:31 AM

We knew he was a woke idiot, but sometimes even that is the lesser of two evils.

Butter! · 21st January 2021, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Transphobes take another L, Biden issues executive order rolling back Trump-era trans discrimination and further plans to expand antidiscrimination policies through the legislature as part of his first 100 days.

https://www.advocate.com/politics/20...discrimination

I skimmed it because I'm posting at work again, but this seems like a very good thing.

SuburbanTurkey · 21st January 2021, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Butter!

I skimmed it because I'm posting at work again, but this seems like a very good thing.

TERFs and transphobes on Twitter are not taking it well.

Originally Posted by A transphobic author of some note

On day 1, Biden unilaterally eviscerates women's sports. Any educational institution that receives federal funding must admit biologically-male athletes to women's teams, women's scholarships, etc.

A new glass ceiling was just placed over girls.

https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier

Butter! · 21st January 2021, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

TERFs and transphobes on Twitter are not taking it well.

https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier

Oh, I didn't realize sports was included. I thought it was forbidding discrimination in areas like housing, hiring, school placement, military, stuff like that.

I don't think one has to be a transphobe to have concerns about sports, though, there are significant practical matters that need to be figured out so that everyone can be accommodated fairly. Do you disagree?

SuburbanTurkey · 21st January 2021, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Butter!

Oh, I didn't realize sports was included. I thought it was forbidding discrimination in areas like housing, hiring, school placement, military, stuff like that.

I don't think one has to be a transphobe to have concerns about sports, though, there are significant practical matters that need to be figured out so that everyone can be accommodated fairly. Do you disagree?

I wouldn't assume that this person's characterization is correct. TERFs love hyperbolic doomsaying in response to every tiny bit of dignity afforded to trans people.

I suppose guidance should be coming shortly from whatever admin is in charge of the respective departments impacted by this (Labor, education, etc).

Ziggurat · 21st January 2021, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Butter!

I don't think one has to be a transphobe to have concerns about sports

You will be called a transphobe nonetheless.

Butter! · 21st January 2021, 09:15 AM

Is it true that schools will lose federal funding if they don't admit trans women to women's sports teams? If so, is that just a unilateral decision, or is there some variability (for different sports, skill levels, hormones vs. no hormones, anything like that)?

Finding an article that just lays it out in a straightforward way is proving difficult.

Ziggurat · 21st January 2021, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Butter!

Is it true that schools will lose federal funding if they don't admit trans women to women's sports teams? If so, is that just a unilateral decision, or is there some variability (for different sports, skill levels, hormones vs. no hormones, anything like that)?

Finding an article that just lays it out in a straightforward way is proving difficult.

Aside from any ambiguity in the Biden admin's position, there are other complications as well.

The president cannot change the law on this. What he can do is declare how the Dept. of Ed. intends to interpret the law. Whether that interpretation holds up in court is another matter. But the problem for schools is that even if they go to court and win, that still hurts. So a lot of them will try to comply regardless. And in the case of any ambiguity, that means complying with the most expansive interpretation of it. So you're probably going to see a lot of inclusion of trans athletes in women's sports even where it doesn't make sense. Yay!

But hey, at least the White House contact submission form now asks for your pronouns. So they've got their priorities ~~straight~~ in order.

SuburbanTurkey · 21st January 2021, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Butter!

Is it true that schools will lose federal funding if they don't admit trans women to women's sports teams? If so, is that just a unilateral decision, or is there some variability (for different sports, skill levels, hormones vs. no hormones, anything like that)?

Finding an article that just lays it out in a straightforward way is proving difficult.

As far as I know, specific guidance has not been issued. The executive order is going to mean policy changes at various agencies, but those policies have not yet been clarified or disseminated.

The EO can initiate a change in policy, but it takes time and work to make it happen, and the details will matter. It's very telling that the transphobes have gone straight to declaring that the sky is falling.

Butter! · 21st January 2021, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

As far as I know, specific guidance has not been issued. The executive order is going to mean policy changes at various agencies, but those policies have yet been clarified or disseminated.

Ah, that would explain why I'm having trouble finding specifics.

Meadmaker · 21st January 2021, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Butter!

Oh, I didn't realize sports was included. I thought it was forbidding discrimination in areas like housing, hiring, school placement, military, stuff like that.

I don't think one has to be a transphobe to have concerns about sports, though, there are significant practical matters that need to be figured out so that everyone can be accommodated fairly. Do you disagree?

No, it's basically school locker rooms and sports.

Meadmaker · 21st January 2021, 10:01 AM

I confess I haven't read the executive order so I might be all wet, but here is what I think is going on with it. I might be all wet, but I'm sure someone will correct me, gently and kindly in a most respectful manner, if I'm wrong.

During the Obama administration, the Department of Education issued guidelines that said schools that receive federal funding would lose that funding unless they treated students according to their gender identity, as opposed to their biological sex. In practice, all US public schools receive and depend on that funding, so it is, for all practical purposes, a federal decree that it has to be that way.

In other words, if the student formerly known as Fred wants to use the girls' locker room and join the girls' volleyball team, then Fred gets to do it, or the school loses funding.

The Trump administration rescinded those guidelines.

I am guessing, but I haven't seen the story, that Biden has restored the Obama era guidelines.

Meadmaker · 21st January 2021, 10:08 AM

Here's the actual executive order.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...l-orientation/

As an exercise for the reader, compare the actual contents of the order with the contents as described in the previously linked article to The Advocate.

ETA: Or, compare the actual executive order to what the New York Times has to say about it:

Originally Posted by NYT

Another executive order reinforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require that the federal government does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, a policy that reverses action by Mr. Trump’s administration.

theprestige · 21st January 2021, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Here's the actual executive order.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...l-orientation/

As an exercise for the reader, compare the actual contents of the order with the contents as described in the previously linked article to The Advocate.

ETA: Or, compare the actual executive order to what the New York Times has to say about it:

I haven't compared it to the executive order, but the NYT is wrong about Title VII requiring "that the federal government does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity". Sex is mentioned as a criteria. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not:

https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-...ights-act-1964

But now that I'm reading Title VII, it seems that any school that maintains separate men's and women's sports teams, dormitories, and restrooms must be ineligible for federal funding. They must also not comply with Title IX requirements to create and maintain separate teams for women's sports.

SuburbanTurkey · 21st January 2021, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I haven't compared it to the executive order, but the NYT is wrong about Title VII requiring "that the federal government does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity". Sex is mentioned as a criteria. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not:

https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-...ights-act-1964

But now that I'm reading Title VII, it seems that any school that maintains separate men's and women's sports teams, dormitories, and restrooms must be ineligible for federal funding. They must also not comply with Title IX requirements to create and maintain separate teams for women's sports.

Title VII has been interpreted by the SCOTUS to cover sexual orientation and gender identity in Bostock v Clayton County.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County

Emily's Cat · 21st January 2021, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I wouldn't assume that this person's characterization is correct. TERFs love hyperbolic doomsaying in response to every tiny bit of dignity afforded to trans people.

I suppose guidance should be coming shortly from whatever admin is in charge of the respective departments impacted by this (Labor, education, etc).

You could, you know, read the link provided in that tweet... which happens to be the actual executive order.

The SECOND sentence is:

Quote:

Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.

Further down there's this bit:

Quote:

Discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation manifests differently for different individuals, and it often overlaps with other forms of prohibited discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race or disability. For example, transgender Black Americans face unconscionably high levels of workplace discrimination, homelessness, and violence, including fatal violence.

I find it interesting that it conveniently fails to mention discrimination on the basis of ACTUAL REAL BIOLOGICAL SEX in there.

SuburbanTurkey · 21st January 2021, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

You could, you know, read the link provided in that tweet... which happens to be the actual executive order.

The SECOND sentence is:

Further down there's this bit:

I find it interesting that it conveniently fails to mention discrimination on the basis of ACTUAL REAL BIOLOGICAL SEX in there.

Cool story.

How exactly the departments shape policy based on this order remains to be seen. Details matter, and how exactly trans inclusion and nondiscrimination policy will be enforced is an open question.

Sounds like they're leaning towards a policy that treats trans children with dignity and respect. Sorry for your loss.

It is my sincere hope that the transphobes rending their garments today are, in fact, correct. If they oppose it, it's probably good policy.

19th January 2021, 07:39 AM	#1481
Butter! Rough Around the Edges Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Deep Storage Posts: 7,270	Originally Posted by cullennz I'm hoping you didn't expect everyone one else outside your company to have to make the same effort.
	__________________ Get these tribbles off the bridge

19th January 2021, 07:47 AM	#1482
Butter! Rough Around the Edges Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Deep Storage Posts: 7,270	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat I started out with this view, in good faith. I've since back-tracked on it. Mostly because it leaves me and other adult human females without a term with which to reference ourselves while retaining our humanity. But also... because "stag" isn't a feeling in the head of an adult male deer, nor is "mare" a feeling in the head of an adult female horse. A "hen" isn't an identity, nor is a "bull". Other parts of my views are becoming less progressive as well. For example, I've come to think that drag queens are highly offensive. Drag shows are essentially minstrel shows... only instead of "blackface", they're putting on "womanface" and performing the worst and most regressive stereotypes as entertainment. I've seen a number of drag shows over the years, and in my early twenties, I also hung out with a drag troupe (and even had a small role in one of their shows once). This probably isn't something I'm supposed to say, but I personally have noticed that drag performed by straight men or trans lesbians often seems much more misogynistic at the roots than drag performed by gay men. I don't really know why that is, and my sample set has been very small, so it could even be a coincidence. The gay drag performers I've known always seemed to be laughing at themselves and fashion culture and gender roles overall, not so much at women and girls. But I don't know, and like I said, I'm probably not even supposed to think stuff like that. It's just something I kind of noticed along the way. If I had to guess, I'd say it has to do with the performers' socialization growing up. My info is outdated, regardless. I haven't seen a drag show or been around drag in a decade.
	__________________ Get these tribbles off the bridge Last edited by Butter!; 19th January 2021 at 07:48 AM.

19th January 2021, 03:22 PM	#1483
Butter! Rough Around the Edges Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Deep Storage Posts: 7,270	Oh crap, I said "trans lesbians" in my post above, when what I meant was "trans gay men." ****, that's a pretty bad slip. I apologize. I was at work and trying to post on the sly, which is a good setting for one-liners, not thoughtful posts. Please excuse me. Seriously, I did not mean to do that, and it's not indicative of my inner thoughts. I was just distracted and got confused, because I'm dumb.
	__________________ Get these tribbles off the bridge

19th January 2021, 04:06 PM	#1484
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 46,967	Don't apologise. Too many women being shamed into issuing grovelling apologies for saying something deemed to be out of turn. Let's not go there.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

19th January 2021, 08:06 PM	#1487
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,276	trans gay men? That would be biological females who identify as male, are attracted to males? And if they are doing drag, that would mean a biological female dressing as a woman, even though he identifies as a man? ETA: I think that first part should be biological females who identify as males but are attracted to men, not necessarily to males, because the males might be women, and if the trans men are gay they wouldn't be attracted to women.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information? Last edited by Meadmaker; 19th January 2021 at 08:08 PM.

19th January 2021, 04:57 PM	#1485
Louden Wilde Thinker Join Date: Oct 2020 Location: NYC Posts: 156	Interesting tweet from "Fair Play for Women", A UK org Here's the start of the long-ish thread: Tonight the @BBCRadio4 documentary 'File On Four' made the claim that growing numbers of women are sexually abusing children. The data cannot be used to show this because police no longer record a perpetrator sex. They now record self-identified gender. The BBC claims “Between 2015 and 2019, the numbers of reported cases of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse to police in England and Wales rose from 1,249 to 2,297 – an increase of 84%.“ The vast majority of child sexual abuse is committed by the male sex. The Crime Survey for England and Wales revealed 96% of adults asked about their experiences of child sexual abuse said it involved a male perpetrator. It is unusual for a lone perpetrator to be female. A similar trend is seen in police crime reports. In the year up to March 2019 there were 73260 reports of child sexual abuse. The BBC says over same time period there were 2297 reports of CSA in which the perpetrator was recorded as female; representing just 3% of all reports. Are more women really committing child sexual abuse? The answer is we simply don’t know. It’s impossible to make this claim from the data available. For starters, we don’t know if there has been a general increase in reporting of CSA or if this is an increase specific to females only. ONS notes that “police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics” and “comparisons should not be made between years".

19th January 2021, 07:59 PM	#1486
Sherkeu Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,386	Originally Posted by Butter! Oh crap, I said "trans lesbians" in my post above, when what I meant was "trans gay men." ****, that's a pretty bad slip. I apologize. I was at work and trying to post on the sly, which is a good setting for one-liners, not thoughtful posts. Please excuse me. Seriously, I did not mean to do that, and it's not indicative of my inner thoughts. I was just distracted and got confused, because I'm dumb. I thought I understood your first post as both groups being people born as male and both attracted to women.... ... but now I'm not sure if you mean a gay man who is performing as a trans woman or a person born female (and now a trans man) performing as a man who is attracted to men. I suppose it is because the word 'gay' can refer to either sex. Perhaps there are not many trans women who are attracted to women who do drag. ??

20th January 2021, 07:03 AM	#1488
Butter! Rough Around the Edges Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Deep Storage Posts: 7,270	Originally Posted by Sherkeu I thought I understood your first post as both groups being people born as male and both attracted to women.... ... but now I'm not sure if you mean a gay man who is performing as a trans woman or a person born female (and now a trans man) performing as a man who is attracted to men. I suppose it is because the word 'gay' can refer to either sex. Perhaps there are not many trans women who are attracted to women who do drag. ?? Yeah, sorry. I was referring to gay trans men, as in people born female who identify as male and are attracted to men. The few I have known (and it's only 3, so again, small sample size - also, this was deep back in the day, as I mentioned) - they seemed to frequently go out of their way to be sort of misogynistic, usually in joking ways of course, but still. I always thought it was their way of distancing themselves from their unwanted birth sex. And yes, some drag shows would often go out of their way to be confusing in that sense. Like men dressed as women dressed as men, stuff like that. I think a number of those people were the types who would identify as non-binary now, but back then I really don't remember that term being around.
	__________________ Get these tribbles off the bridge Last edited by Butter!; 20th January 2021 at 07:04 AM.

20th January 2021, 11:46 AM	#1489
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 14,812	Originally Posted by LondonJohn Maybe a good place to start addressing your reactionary incomprehension might be...... to actually try to seek out Izzard's own understanding of her condition. After all, she's a very articulate and apparently very intelligent person. Or would you prefer to keep labelling her with your own bigoted interpretations? Eddie Izzard hasn't requested a name change and has stated no intention of undergoing any sort of hormonal or surgical treatment. In the past, Izzard has referred to themself as a transvestite - that's their own label. Now, Izzard refers to themself as a transwoman. The only thing that has changed is the label that they themselves are using. There is literally no other difference here. So... where's the "bigotry" that you're busy judging me for?
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

20th January 2021, 11:52 AM	#1490
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 8,014	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Eddie Izzard hasn't requested a name change and has stated no intention of undergoing any sort of hormonal or surgical treatment. In the past, Izzard has referred to themself as a transvestite - that's their own label. Now, Izzard refers to themself as a transwoman. The only thing that has changed is the label that they themselves are using. There is literally no other difference here. So... where's the "bigotry" that you're busy judging me for? That's the only thing that has changed, to your eye, in the past few decades? You honestly can't think of any reason why someone might have identified as transvestite years ago, and as as transwoman now? You can't see why growing acceptance of trans people might change the way someone might view themselves and present themselves to the world? You are, generally speaking, aware of the concept of being "closeted", right? "Why didn't this person refer to themselves as a trans woman back when doing so would have had missive social stigma attached to it?" is an absurd criticism. Next you're going to tell me you're shocked that the two "roommates" of 30 years are actually gay men!
	__________________ Gobble gobble

20th January 2021, 12:04 PM	#1491
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey You are, generally speaking, aware of the concept of being "closeted", right? "Why didn't this person refer to themselves as a trans woman back when doing so would have had missive social stigma attached to it?" is an absurd criticism. Next you're going to tell me you're shocked that the two "roommates" of 30 years are actually gay men! Imagine two roommates who kiss each other on the lips in public. Are they closeted? No, they are not. I don't pay any attention to Izzard, so I cannot speak to the accuracy of this. But Emily explicitly stated that nothing about Izzard's behavior has changed. If that is correct (and I have no knowledge either way), that's a pretty strong indicator that there is no closet involved here, at least not one that Izzard has actually come out of. The whole point of coming out of the closet isn't to get people to change the labels they apply to you, it's so that you can act publicly the way you want to act instead of putting up a fake front. There's no point in "coming out" if you already act the way you want to OR you continue to put up a fake front.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

20th January 2021, 12:04 PM	#1492
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 14,812	Originally Posted by Butter! I've seen a number of drag shows over the years, and in my early twenties, I also hung out with a drag troupe (and even had a small role in one of their shows once). This probably isn't something I'm supposed to say, but I personally have noticed that drag performed by straight men or trans lesbians often seems much more misogynistic at the roots than drag performed by gay men. I don't really know why that is, and my sample set has been very small, so it could even be a coincidence. The gay drag performers I've known always seemed to be laughing at themselves and fashion culture and gender roles overall, not so much at women and girls. But I don't know, and like I said, I'm probably not even supposed to think stuff like that. It's just something I kind of noticed along the way. If I had to guess, I'd say it has to do with the performers' socialization growing up. My info is outdated, regardless. I haven't seen a drag show or been around drag in a decade. You're allowed to think - and say - whatever the hell you want. There's a chance that someone may be offended by what you say, but nobody has a right to not be offended. Additionally, women being conditioned to feel that they're not allowed to think that their situations are screwed up is a component of why women are still treated as unequal throughout the otherwise developed world.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

20th January 2021, 12:08 PM	#1493
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 14,812	Originally Posted by Louden Wilde Interesting tweet from "Fair Play for Women", A UK org Here's the start of the long-ish thread: Tonight the @BBCRadio4 documentary 'File On Four' made the claim that growing numbers of women are sexually abusing children. The data cannot be used to show this because police no longer record a perpetrator sex. They now record self-identified gender. The BBC claims “Between 2015 and 2019, the numbers of reported cases of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse to police in England and Wales rose from 1,249 to 2,297 – an increase of 84%.“ The vast majority of child sexual abuse is committed by the male sex. The Crime Survey for England and Wales revealed 96% of adults asked about their experiences of child sexual abuse said it involved a male perpetrator. It is unusual for a lone perpetrator to be female. A similar trend is seen in police crime reports. In the year up to March 2019 there were 73260 reports of child sexual abuse. The BBC says over same time period there were 2297 reports of CSA in which the perpetrator was recorded as female; representing just 3% of all reports. Are more women really committing child sexual abuse? The answer is we simply don’t know. It’s impossible to make this claim from the data available. For starters, we don’t know if there has been a general increase in reporting of CSA or if this is an increase specific to females only. ONS notes that “police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics” and “comparisons should not be made between years". That's one of the concerns I voiced a while back with respect to the Trans Agenda. Referring to criminals - especially in cases of sexual aggression and domestic violence - by their preferred gender provides cover for the continuation of crimes that disproportionately harm women and children, committed by males. It masks the pattern of male violence, and gives the false impression that females are committing more crimes of this sort.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

20th January 2021, 12:10 PM	#1494
Butter! Rough Around the Edges Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Deep Storage Posts: 7,270	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat You're allowed to think - and say - whatever the hell you want. There's a chance that someone may be offended by what you say, but nobody has a right to not be offended. Additionally, women being conditioned to feel that they're not allowed to think that their situations are screwed up is a component of why women are still treated as unequal throughout the otherwise developed world. I worded that poorly. I didn't really mean it in the sense of "thoughtcrime." I just often catch myself thinking uncharitable things, so I try to be aware that there could be more to a situation than what I'm seeing.
	__________________ Get these tribbles off the bridge

20th January 2021, 12:15 PM	#1495
Butter! Rough Around the Edges Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Deep Storage Posts: 7,270	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat That's one of the concerns I voiced a while back with respect to the Trans Agenda. Referring to criminals - especially in cases of sexual aggression and domestic violence - by their preferred gender provides cover for the continuation of crimes that disproportionately harm women and children, committed by males. It masks the pattern of male violence, and gives the false impression that females are committing more crimes of this sort. Yeah, this is one that concerned me too, and it's what I was referring to when I listed "statistics" as one of the reasons I object to the redefinition of sex (again, not talking about gender - it seems necessary to clarify in the context of this discussion). I understand that the argument can be made that trans women are women, and therefore the statistics would be correct, but that position doesn't seem like a very strong one when we're specifically talking about sex crimes that require certain "equipment" to commit (or to fall victim to). That's a precise area where genitals really do matter, I think. Furthermore, self-ID could present problems of extreme (and possibly even deliberate) statistical confusion. These aren't bigoted statements. The world is a big place, and it's really hard to find ways to balance everyone's rights and desires. Discussion is needed. ETA - Of course, if we had 4 categories instead of 2, then it could work. Male gender/male sex, female gender/female sex, male gender/female sex, female gender/male sex. If crime rates were reported that way, then it doesn't seem as though there wouldn't be a problem.
	__________________ Get these tribbles off the bridge Last edited by Butter!; 20th January 2021 at 12:21 PM.

20th January 2021, 12:16 PM	#1496
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat That's one of the concerns I voiced a while back with respect to the Trans Agenda. Referring to criminals - especially in cases of sexual aggression and domestic violence - by their preferred gender provides cover for the continuation of crimes that disproportionately harm women and children, committed by males. It masks the pattern of male violence, and gives the false impression that females are committing more crimes of this sort. Titania McGrath strikes again: "Given that women are woefully underrepresented in the prison population, a male criminal choosing to identify as female can only be a good thing."
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

20th January 2021, 12:17 PM	#1497
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 14,812	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey That's the only thing that has changed, to your eye, in the past few decades? You honestly can't think of any reason why someone might have identified as transvestite years ago, and as as transwoman now? You can't see why growing acceptance of trans people might change the way someone might view themselves and present themselves to the world? You are, generally speaking, aware of the concept of being "closeted", right? "Why didn't this person refer to themselves as a trans woman back when doing so would have had missive social stigma attached to it?" is an absurd criticism. Next you're going to tell me you're shocked that the two "roommates" of 30 years are actually gay men! Izzard was pretty open about his penchant for wearing women's clothing and make-up. There only closet involved is the one in which he kept his dresses. He did an entire comedy special dressed in a very flattering chinese-styled dress. At the end of the day, Izzard is a penis-bearing adult male who dresses in clothing traditionally assumed to be worn by females of the species, and who adorns their face with make-up traditionally assumed to be used by females of the species. Izzard has stated no intention of undergoing any hormone therapy, nor of having any surgery at all. The only difference is literally the label being used... and that NOW a pile of people would jump at the chance to demand that Izzard (who is sexually attracted to females) should have unfettered access to all women's spaces on the basis of his self-proclamation that he is now a woman. I think Izzard is a great person. Funny and charismatic. But there's LITERALLY no difference between Izzard's prior behavior and comportment and Izzard's current behavior and comportment. But somehow, with Izzard's claim to a specific label, the entire rest of humanity is expected to THINK differently about him, and to PRETEND that there's no difference between him and any other female person. It's absurd to think that a personal proclamation dictates an obligation to the rest of society.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

20th January 2021, 12:18 PM	#1498
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 14,812	I love the term "gender lysenkoism".
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

20th January 2021, 12:22 PM	#1499
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 14,812	Originally Posted by Butter! I worded that poorly. I didn't really mean it in the sense of "thoughtcrime." I just often catch myself thinking uncharitable things, so I try to be aware that there could be more to a situation than what I'm seeing. I get you. But you're still allowed to think and say uncharitable things. Acknowledging that it's speculation is fine. Just don't fall into the trap of falsely pretending that women are supposed to always be nice and supportive and think kind thoughts.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

20th January 2021, 12:34 PM	#1500
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,665	I've become a trans-activism-phobe.

20th January 2021, 05:37 PM	#1501
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 46,967	There's a lot of it about. In related news a young idiot who calls himself Teddy has flounced off from the SNP with loud complaints about the party being riddled with transphobia. I see he's shaved off his beard recently but he still looks like a guy. This appears to be his reaction to the forces of rationality having managed to win some places in the governing body of the party at the last internal elections. The First Minister and Justice Secretary (and quite a few more of the inner circle) are still as woke as hell and hell-bent on railroading the self-ID and the "hate speech" legislation through. But that's not enough for Teddy, no gender critical voices should be heard at all or he'll throw a hissy fit. Good riddance I say. But on his way out he announced that trans SNP members were being physically and sexually assaulted by other SNP members. I don't know if he can be held to account for these lies though.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

21st January 2021, 04:35 AM	#1502
Elaedith Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,462	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat That's one of the concerns I voiced a while back with respect to the Trans Agenda. Referring to criminals - especially in cases of sexual aggression and domestic violence - by their preferred gender provides cover for the continuation of crimes that disproportionately harm women and children, committed by males. It masks the pattern of male violence, and gives the false impression that females are committing more crimes of this sort. Interesting thread on this from Prof Alice Sullivan

21st January 2021, 05:27 AM	#1503
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 8,014	Transphobes take another L, Biden issues executive order rolling back Trump-era trans discrimination and further plans to expand antidiscrimination policies through the legislature as part of his first 100 days. https://www.advocate.com/politics/20...discrimination
	__________________ Gobble gobble

21st January 2021, 05:31 AM	#1504
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 46,967	We knew he was a woke idiot, but sometimes even that is the lesser of two evils.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

21st January 2021, 06:46 AM	#1505
Butter! Rough Around the Edges Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Deep Storage Posts: 7,270	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Transphobes take another L, Biden issues executive order rolling back Trump-era trans discrimination and further plans to expand antidiscrimination policies through the legislature as part of his first 100 days. https://www.advocate.com/politics/20...discrimination I skimmed it because I'm posting at work again, but this seems like a very good thing.
	__________________ Get these tribbles off the bridge Last edited by Butter!; 21st January 2021 at 06:52 AM.

21st January 2021, 06:55 AM	#1506
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 8,014	Originally Posted by Butter! I skimmed it because I'm posting at work again, but this seems like a very good thing. TERFs and transphobes on Twitter are not taking it well. Originally Posted by A transphobic author of some note On day 1, Biden unilaterally eviscerates women's sports. Any educational institution that receives federal funding must admit biologically-male athletes to women's teams, women's scholarships, etc. A new glass ceiling was just placed over girls. https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier
	__________________ Gobble gobble

21st January 2021, 06:58 AM	#1507
Butter! Rough Around the Edges Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Deep Storage Posts: 7,270	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey TERFs and transphobes on Twitter are not taking it well. https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier Oh, I didn't realize sports was included. I thought it was forbidding discrimination in areas like housing, hiring, school placement, military, stuff like that. I don't think one has to be a transphobe to have concerns about sports, though, there are significant practical matters that need to be figured out so that everyone can be accommodated fairly. Do you disagree?
	__________________ Get these tribbles off the bridge

21st January 2021, 07:00 AM	#1508
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 8,014	Originally Posted by Butter! Oh, I didn't realize sports was included. I thought it was forbidding discrimination in areas like housing, hiring, school placement, military, stuff like that. I don't think one has to be a transphobe to have concerns about sports, though, there are significant practical matters that need to be figured out so that everyone can be accommodated fairly. Do you disagree? I wouldn't assume that this person's characterization is correct. TERFs love hyperbolic doomsaying in response to every tiny bit of dignity afforded to trans people. I suppose guidance should be coming shortly from whatever admin is in charge of the respective departments impacted by this (Labor, education, etc).
	__________________ Gobble gobble Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 21st January 2021 at 07:03 AM.

21st January 2021, 07:01 AM	#1509
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Butter! I don't think one has to be a transphobe to have concerns about sports You will be called a transphobe nonetheless.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

21st January 2021, 09:15 AM	#1510
Butter! Rough Around the Edges Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Deep Storage Posts: 7,270	Is it true that schools will lose federal funding if they don't admit trans women to women's sports teams? If so, is that just a unilateral decision, or is there some variability (for different sports, skill levels, hormones vs. no hormones, anything like that)? Finding an article that just lays it out in a straightforward way is proving difficult.
	__________________ Get these tribbles off the bridge

21st January 2021, 09:31 AM	#1511
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Butter! Is it true that schools will lose federal funding if they don't admit trans women to women's sports teams? If so, is that just a unilateral decision, or is there some variability (for different sports, skill levels, hormones vs. no hormones, anything like that)? Finding an article that just lays it out in a straightforward way is proving difficult. Aside from any ambiguity in the Biden admin's position, there are other complications as well. The president cannot change the law on this. What he can do is declare how the Dept. of Ed. intends to interpret the law. Whether that interpretation holds up in court is another matter. But the problem for schools is that even if they go to court and win, that still hurts. So a lot of them will try to comply regardless. And in the case of any ambiguity, that means complying with the most expansive interpretation of it. So you're probably going to see a lot of inclusion of trans athletes in women's sports even where it doesn't make sense. Yay! But hey, at least the White House contact submission form now asks for your pronouns. So they've got their priorities ~~straight~~ in order.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

21st January 2021, 09:35 AM	#1512
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 8,014	Originally Posted by Butter! Is it true that schools will lose federal funding if they don't admit trans women to women's sports teams? If so, is that just a unilateral decision, or is there some variability (for different sports, skill levels, hormones vs. no hormones, anything like that)? Finding an article that just lays it out in a straightforward way is proving difficult. As far as I know, specific guidance has not been issued. The executive order is going to mean policy changes at various agencies, but those policies have not yet been clarified or disseminated. The EO can initiate a change in policy, but it takes time and work to make it happen, and the details will matter. It's very telling that the transphobes have gone straight to declaring that the sky is falling.
	__________________ Gobble gobble Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 21st January 2021 at 09:48 AM.

21st January 2021, 09:47 AM	#1513
Butter! Rough Around the Edges Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Deep Storage Posts: 7,270	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey As far as I know, specific guidance has not been issued. The executive order is going to mean policy changes at various agencies, but those policies have yet been clarified or disseminated. Ah, that would explain why I'm having trouble finding specifics.
	__________________ Get these tribbles off the bridge

21st January 2021, 09:55 AM	#1514
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,276	Originally Posted by Butter! Oh, I didn't realize sports was included. I thought it was forbidding discrimination in areas like housing, hiring, school placement, military, stuff like that. I don't think one has to be a transphobe to have concerns about sports, though, there are significant practical matters that need to be figured out so that everyone can be accommodated fairly. Do you disagree? No, it's basically school locker rooms and sports.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

21st January 2021, 10:01 AM	#1515
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,276	I confess I haven't read the executive order so I might be all wet, but here is what I think is going on with it. I might be all wet, but I'm sure someone will correct me, gently and kindly in a most respectful manner, if I'm wrong. During the Obama administration, the Department of Education issued guidelines that said schools that receive federal funding would lose that funding unless they treated students according to their gender identity, as opposed to their biological sex. In practice, all US public schools receive and depend on that funding, so it is, for all practical purposes, a federal decree that it has to be that way. In other words, if the student formerly known as Fred wants to use the girls' locker room and join the girls' volleyball team, then Fred gets to do it, or the school loses funding. The Trump administration rescinded those guidelines. I am guessing, but I haven't seen the story, that Biden has restored the Obama era guidelines.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?