The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

NYT - Trump Administration Could Redefine Gender

Scroll to see replies

Original post by qwertyK
Lesbians have complained about trans people before https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-44910644


Fantastic im so pleased to know that a few lesbians now speak for the entire gay community :borat:
Original post by qwertyK
Why would you need a sex change unless you want to attract the opposite sex without being called gay/lesbian?

As said, if we encourage these sexual irregularities, we will soon be accepting the Zoophilla community, or Incest.


Ok, so we can confirm you don't know the first thing about transgender people. They can be straight, gay, lesbians, bi, pan, ace or any sexual orientation whatsoever - gender identity is distinct from sexuality.

Comparing it to paraphilias is as stupid as it is when it was done for L&G people - consent is key: zoophilia harms an animal which cannot consent, paedophilia harms a child who cannot consent etc.
Science is very sexist/racist, how dare orange man bad use it.
Original post by MrDystopia
Standing up for LGBT rights said Trump.

Proponents of a small state said Republicans.

Now you have Trump going back on his word (as always) and a party willing to say people need to submit to genetic testing if there's a dispute. (See: 'Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.' ). Standard hypocrisy from the GOP, supporter's heads must be spinning (if they're keeping up that is, rather than following blindly).


Worth considering that this at best treats intersex people as an inconvenience, but given the sort of corner these people occupy I'd not be surprised if they actually considered intersex people to be defective, and will easily lead to the harassment of any GNC cis people - which makes it all the stranger that some "feminists" are backing this.

Also, really excited to see where an administration that openly courts white supremacists will stop with the genetic testing to determine who gets civil rights...
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Worth considering that this at best treats intersex people as an inconvenience, but given the sort of corner these people occupy I'd not be surprised if they actually considered intersex people to be defective, and will easily lead to the harassment of any GNC cis people - which makes it all the stranger that some "feminists" are backing this.

Also, really excited to see where an administration that openly courts white supremacists will stop with the genetic testing to determine who gets civil rights...


Devoid of any sense and most definitely a slippery slope.

As I say, those on the right should be condemning this but as we've seen countless times, they can't square the blatant hypocrisy with their fixation on Trump.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Well if you actually read the link you'll see it refers to the LGBT community as a whole, arguing it doesn't protect homosexuality either



No it doesn't. I cannot work out how you'd possibly think that without working completely perpendicular to reality


Looks like no one is losing their civil rights then, there is no civil rights relating to swapping gender.
What is the need for transgenderism? Please, enlighten me! Prove me wrong
Original post by DrMikeHuntHertz
Science is very sexist/racist, how dare orange man bad use it.


Only in clown world do people get so hyped and fiery about Cheeto Man Blumpf's administration declaring biological sex based on biology. If only people could read the article.
Original post by AperfectBalance
Looks like no one is losing their civil rights then, there is no civil rights relating to swapping gender.


Do you really not understand anything in the NYT story linked? They're talking about extensions done under Title IX around sex discrimination, which has been repeatedly read by courts as protecting expressions of that sex, which is how they incorporated homosexuality into it, and have included gender expression into it. The Trump administration, or at least sections of it, are arguing there should be no protections under Title IX for trans people (or indeed the LGBT community as a whole). What that does is essentially make it legal to discriminate against LGBT people in any scheme that receives federal funding.

Original post by qwertyK
What is the need for transgenderism? Please, enlighten me! Prove me wrong


There's no transgenderism, it's not an ideology. There are only transgender people, who are people that experience a different gender to that assigned to them at birth and may wish to change appearance, legal documents etc to reflect that.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Do you really not understand anything in the NYT story linked? They're talking about extensions done under Title IX around sex discrimination, which has been repeatedly read by courts as protecting expressions of that sex, which is how they incorporated homosexuality into it, and have included gender expression into it. The Trump administration, or at least sections of it, are arguing there should be no protections under Title IX for trans people (or indeed the LGBT community as a whole). What that does is essentially make it legal to discriminate against LGBT people in any scheme that receives federal funding.



There's no transgenderism, it's not an ideology. There are only transgender people, who are people that experience a different gender to that assigned to them at birth and may wish to change appearance, legal documents etc to reflect that.


There will be the standard legal protections to protect them and that is perfectly fine.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Ok, so we can confirm you don't know the first thing about transgender people. They can be straight, gay, lesbians, bi, pan, ace or any sexual orientation whatsoever - gender identity is distinct from sexuality.

Comparing it to paraphilias is as stupid as it is when it was done for L&G people - consent is key: zoophilia harms an animal which cannot consent, paedophilia harms a child who cannot consent etc.


THANKYOU

qwertyK
Everything you've said so far


Look dude, I was multiquoting you, but I realized there were too many multis, so I'm just quoting everything you've said.

With regards to the whole "just become L/G" thing, how does that solve the gender thing.
One thing you're really confusing here is the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation. Let me give you an example. My friend is a girl. That means she is happy with the gender and body she has. She is a girl, that is her gender. She is straight. That means she only falls in love with men. That's her sexual orientation. There's a difference. Get it.
Another thing, ffs look up gender dysphoria will you? That's why people might be transgender.

Original post by AperfectBalance
There will be the standard legal protections to protect them and that is perfectly fine.


Do me a favour and reread the article. You seem to have missed out that he is denying them their rights to express their gender however they wish, and denying them protection.
Original post by AperfectBalance
There will be the standard legal protections to protect them and that is perfectly fine.


No there won't, that's the bloody point. What they're talking about is defining sex in such a way that gender expression isn't covered under existing anti-discrimination laws
This is a fantastic development for those of us who are quite happy with most gender norms.

While i don't care if you define your gender as a hemaphroditic fish, the law should not pander to your whims.
Original post by Rakas21
This is a fantastic development for those of us who are quite happy with most gender norms.

While i don't care if you define your gender as a hemaphroditic fish, the law should not pander to your whims.


If you don't care about them (not you but everyone who believes that :colondollar:) then why don't you just f*ck off and keep your opinions to yourself. We're not hurting anybody so why shouldn't we be able to express ourselves?
Original post by Rakas21
This is a fantastic development for those of us who are quite happy with most gender norms.


Except it's not at all. Rights aren't a zero sum game, this doesn't benefit gender conforming people in any way. It's needless cruelty that benefits no-one.
Original post by qwertyK
The way i see it ,gays have got right to marriage which IMO they should never have got. Transgenders are recognised. What more could you want? The whole thing has now become heavily politicised.


Politicised yes, but only because of resistance by one side to the idea that treating people fairly across the board, for whoever they are, should be obvious.
Original post by qwertyK
The way i see it ,gays have got right to marriage which IMO they should never have got. Transgenders are recognised. What more could you want? The whole thing has now become heavily politicised.


For Christ's sake didn't you read the f*cking article? Trump wants to UNRECOGNIZE transgenders.
Original post by HowToBeABlobfish
For Christ's sake didn't you read the f*cking article? Trump wants to UNRECOGNIZE transgenders.


NYT is proven to be fake news on several occasions. 1.4 million out of 323 million. Thats barely 0.4% of the population. Doubt it will be too detrimental
If there are 1.4 million people in the US who have chosen to engage in incest, does that mean we should accept Incest as a right?
Original post by qwertyK
NYT is proven to be fake news on several occasions. 1.4 million out of 323 million. Thats barely 0.4% of the population. Doubt it will be too detrimental


In comparison to 323 million, sure it's not much. But 1.4 million by itself is a huge amount.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you