Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/12/trump-transgender-lgbt-healthcare-protections

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/trump-administration-revokes-transgender-health-protection/2020/06/12/3d2edab0-ad0b-11ea-a43b-be9f6494a87d_story.html

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/12/trump-transgender-lgbt-healthcare-protections

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/trump-administration-revokes-transgender-health-protection/2020/06/12/3d2edab0-ad0b-11ea-a43b-be9f6494a87d_story.html

He also did it on the anniversary of the largest mass shooting in U.S. history in which 49 patrons of an LGBTQ nightclub were killed.

Recinding LGBTQ protections on the anniversary of a domestic terrorist attack against LGBTQ people, because he is a piece of shit.

He is.

This is a travesty.



I say repeal federal funding to insurances, period.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He also did it on the anniversary of the largest mass shooting in U.S. history in which 49 patrons of an LGBTQ nightclub were killed.

Recinding LGBTQ protections on the anniversary of a domestic terrorist attack against LGBTQ people, because he is a piece of shit.

Stay classy Trump/Trumpers

They'll say "just another coincidence" though.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Discrimination on the basis of sex is not exclusively about biology, but can include expectations assigned to people on the basis of biology.

Narrowly interpreting sex as biology alone, means that a transgender woman who appears indistinguishable from a cisgender woman can be fired by her employer for presenting as a woman because she was born male.

Under this interpretation, she is not being discriminated against, because no males are permitted to present as women, irrespective of whether they have transitioned to women. Originally posted by StyleTime
Language evolves along with our understanding of the world. It's disconcerting to you because you witnessed one in real time. You use words all the time that diverged from their original meaning though. It gets even murkier when words get appropriated by a new language.

The word "girl" originally referred to children of either sex, for example.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Narrowly interpreting sex as biology alone, means that a transgender woman who appears indistinguishable from a cisgender woman can be fired by her employer for presenting as a woman because she was born male.

Under this interpretation, she is not being discriminated against, because no males are permitted to present as women, irrespective of whether they have transitioned to women.

This seems like such an extreme scenario.


I feel like I may not understand your scenario.


So Bill is born a male.

He decides it's time to formally transition to female at 25 - now Billie. After being hired at Joe-Bobs Confederate Tax Firm.

He completes the transition. She's now 27. Joe from Joe-Bobs' Confederate Tax Firm doesn't "like his* kind around here." So he fires Billie for breaking dress code.



Is that the scenario you're talking about?

A dress code policy actually exists in the current company I work for and as long as you're in dress code, you can dress as anything. You can wear a blouse with slacks, for example - a long as both are in dress code.



But, anyway, is that it? Is that the scenario you describe?

*He'd use the wrong pronoun on purpose so I kept the pretend quote as authentic as possible. No offense intended.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
We fought a civil war to end slavery in this country. The Confederate losers only stopped the practice, because they were forced.

Again no. Slavery was never the main reason for the war. Also nice one on missing when I said that slavery ended not because of the government interference, but because good people rose up to fight.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Discrimination on the basis of sex is not exclusively about biology, but can include expectations assigned to people on the basis of biology.

Narrowly interpreting sex as biology alone, means that a transgender woman who appears indistinguishable from a cisgender woman can be fired by her employer for presenting as a woman because she was born male.

Under this interpretation, she is not being discriminated against, because no males are permitted to present as women, irrespective of whether they have transitioned to women.

I wouldn't think that that would fly. It would be an easy discrimination lawsuit.

Also, it seems it was re-protected.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2...ender-identity/

Transgender women tend to have brain structures that resemble cisgender women, rather than cisgender men. Two sexually dimorphic (differing between men and women) areas of the brain are often compared between men and women. The bed nucleus of the stria terminalus (BSTc) and sexually dimorphic nucleus of transgender women are more similar to those of cisgender woman than to those of cisgender men, suggesting that the general brain structure of these women is in keeping with their gender identity


Seriously man.


I know half the fun of politics is piling on, but one thing I can never get anyone on the left to talk about: Isn't there any concern against abusing the system, and maybe taking this as an opportunity to improve on it?


I mean, everybody knows people absolutely do "game the system". Whether that matters to anyone, seems to depend on what team you're playing for. Cons can never, EVER find fault with the military industrial complex or capitalism.


And leftists can't ever seem to care about abusing social services, or weaponizing race for political gain.



In fact, political opportunism in general seems uncomfortably tolerated by both sides, far as I'm concerned.


Personally, I'd like a system where everybody loses .


Yes, loses. I think people need to accept loss with a lot more grace then they do. Anyone can be passionate about gaining something.

Oops.

Originally posted by cdtm
Seriously man.

I know half the fun of politics is piling on, but one thing I can never get anyone on the left to talk about: Isn't there any concern against abusing the system, and maybe taking this as an opportunity to improve on it?

I mean, everybody knows people absolutely do "game the system". Whether that matters to anyone, seems to depend on what team you're playing for. Cons can never, EVER find fault with the military industrial complex or capitalism.

And leftists can't ever seem to care about abusing social services, or weaponizing race for political gain.

In fact, political opportunism in general seems uncomfortably tolerated by both sides, far as I'm concerned.

Personally, I'd like a system where everybody loses .

Yes, loses. I think people need to accept loss with a lot more grace then they do. Anyone can be passionate about gaining something.
Sure, identity politics is detrimental to progress, and it happens on both sides. I'd love more nuance on the forums, but I also see many aren't interested in good faith discussions when you acknowledge potential problems in your own stance. It's generally just so they can go "hah, so you're wrong about everything" without engaging with your full idea.

I'm not sure what you actually mean here though. People turning a blind eye to welfare fraud? That's one of the reasons UBI has growing support. Welfare fraud isn't as common as some think, but it's near impossible with UBI in theory.

Originally posted by socool8520
I wouldn't think that that would fly. It would be an easy discrimination lawsuit.