All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[Gray Lensman]

Am I mistaken on anything I've said regarding the policy, or the definition of sex?

I disagree with the notion that Kemp and DeSantis are openly racist, although both are flawed candidates.

However, why should a centrist Republican embrace Abrams and Gillum?

The pushback against facts worries me.

It's hard to see Mr. "don't let the brown guy monkey things up" in Florida as anything but a racist. In Georgia I'd hope a centrist anything prefers democracy to Jim Crow. A guy running for office taking an active hand in who gets to vote and who doesn't and seems to be disqualifying voters most likely to go the other way based on faulty science (handwriting analysis takes actual training and 10 samples minimum) doesn't deserve any support.

I'm a registered Libertarian, and despite my party's near endorsement of several Republicans in state races (as well as several Democrats as the Nevada party has realized social issues have importance alongside small and efficient government) I refused to pull the lever for any of them. The widespread voter suppression initiatives across the country have led me to believe that the Republican party as a whole no longer supports democracy - and even someone who I disagree with on every single issue besides that one is better in the long run than someone who agrees with me 100% but wants to roll back voting access.

[Tendrin]

Am I mistaken on anything I've said regarding the policy, or the definition of sex?

I disagree with the notion that Kemp and DeSantis are openly racist, although both are flawed candidates.

However, why should a centrist Republican embrace Abrams and Gillum?

The pushback against facts worries me.

This isn't a pushback against facts. It's a pushback against your apologism for what is obvious.

[Tami]

Canadian deported despite having served for US military

A Canadian army captain who fought alongside American troops in Afghanistan, and who is married to a former officer in the US air force, has been deported as Donald Trump’s zero tolerance immigration policies continue to break apart military families.

Demetry Furman, 47, says he held a top-level security clearance with US forces during his service in the Middle East and worked with them on several successful anti-drugs operations that prevented millions of dollars of heroin coming to the West.

But in a twist of irony he says it was a long-spent 1992 marijuana conviction that led to his being dumped by agents from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (Ice) at the Canadian border on Tuesday – after he spent 77 days in a maximum security jail in Ohio labelled as a drugs trafficker.

“I feel betrayed. It’s a slap in the face because when I was in Afghanistan no-one cared what flag was on my shoulder,” Furman said. “I’m labelled a drug trafficker by them right now, but when I was in Afghanistan and guarding poppy fields, I was stopping opium convoys through Pakistan to China to be made into heroin and shipped to the US.”

Even Canadians

[Panfoot]

Am I mistaken on anything I've said regarding the policy, or the definition of sex?

You're completely ignoring how this actually affects people and isn't just some simple "technically the definition means this" matter. Can you honestly say that this has a positive purpose and isn't just a way to make the lives of ~1.4 million people even harder?

[JCAll]

The pushback against facts worries me.

The pushback against redefining words to loosen protection for minorities worries me.
How can we oppress people if we can't "technically" not be oppressing them.
/sarcasm

[Tendrin]

This is the second time he's specifically gone after trans people. This draft is absolutely being floated as part of the election in an effort to remind evangelicals what gains are posssible with a continually supine congress.

The bottom line is that this administration wants to rescind civil right protections for what is the single most vulnerable minoriity In this country by demanding a DNA test to prove biological sex.

Seeing this, recognizing it for what it is, is not pushing back against 'facts'. If anything, it's focusing on the actual impact versus hiding behind technicalities in an effort to find something exculpatory for the party.

My soon to be housemate is trans. I'm sure she'll appreciate being told that her civil rights has to be destroyed because of a desire to roll back Obama era 'policy objectives'.

JFC

[PaulBullion]

Am I mistaken on anything I've said regarding the policy, or the definition of sex?

.

The fact that the old definition may be "more widely accepted" does not make it less damaging or inhumane to those whose entire existence proves that definition wrong.

[Kevinroc]

https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/...28419070025729

1933: the Hitler Administration burned the library of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft destroying decades of queer & trans research.

Then over 100k people were imprisoned/tortured for not confirming to gender roles.

First you burn the science, then the law, then the people.

[Mister Mets]

The fact that the old definition may be "more widely accepted" does not make it less damaging or inhumane to those whose entire existence proves that definition wrong.

Is there any credible source with a different definition on sex?

Aside from the jokes about f***ing.

The pushback against redefining words to loosen protection for minorities worries me.
How can we oppress people if we can't "technically" not be oppressing them.
/sarcasm

In this context, sex has a clear definition.

[zinderel]

The proposal seems to be about how to define sex for the purposes of various policies.



Within the medical community, sex is seen as distinct from gender, and determined by biology. This is a view shared by Stanford, the American Psychological Association, the World Health Organization, and Planned Parenthood.

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spr...ur-health.html



https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...im-so-confused



https://www.plannedparenthood.org/le...ender-identity



It appears that the Obama administration defined sex differently in order to extend protections and obligations, in which case the Trump administration is just going back to the more widely accepted definition. It is self-serving for conservatives at this point, although there is utility in clarity, and if you want the Trump administration to have less power in general, you shouldn't be in favor of presidential administrations changing definitions of terms from the commonly accepted meanings in order to achieve policy objectives.

So, Mets, lemme ask you something.

From your posting on the matter, you clearly view the latest Republican attempt to deny trans people any sense of agency or dignity as less of a 'human rights' thing and more of a 'clinical' thing, from which you have distanced all human emotion and experience in favor of focusing on one narrow, NARROW semantic argument while you ignore the broader scope and reality of the policy they want to enact - the latest in a long line of blows your party and president have levied against our trans brothers and sisters. You're caught up in the semantics of 'sex' as opposed to 'gender' and failing to see (willfully or not), how it will affect actual lives, while you focus on technicalities. You do this while YET AGAIN making an apologetics tour for yet another monstrously inhumane policy your transphobic president and party are considering.

So, my question: Do you know anyone/have any loved ones who are trans? Particularly MtF?

I do. I have people in my circle of friends, my FAMILY, who are trans, who will be affected - in an emotional, experiential, and tangible way - by this latest attempt to dehumanize and demean them and deny their existence, so I fail to see any 'nuance' in ANY attempt to deny their humanity by your party. You focus on the definition of 'sex' while ignoring the realities of what this policy will do to a minority that has ALWAYS been derided, abused, thrown away and denied basic humanity because of 'semantic', 'reasonable' arguments like yours.

So, second question: How do you sleep at night, knowing that your party is in the business of actively denying your fellow human being their inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless they're white, male, wealthy, Christian, and straight?

[Adam Allen]

Within the medical community, sex is seen as distinct from gender, and determined by biology. This is a view shared by Stanford, the American Psychological Association, the World Health Organization, and Planned Parenthood.

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spr...ur-health.html

“We don’t know how to measure gender,” says Stefanick, director of the Stanford Women and Sex Differences in Medicine, or WSDM (pronounced “wisdom”), Center. “Sex is generally assigned at birth, based on external genitalia, after which a broad range of biological, particularly reproductive, sex differences are assumed. Individuals are then, usually, forced into a binary model of gender — with distinct masculine and feminine categories — when the possibilities are much broader and more expansive.”

That doesn't say "sex is determined by biology". Sex is assigned and assumed, and the majority of the population is just lucky enough that what is assumed at birth matches roughly enough with how they actually feel.

Nearly as much as 2% of the population isn't so lucky, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment

Even if it was just one percent, we're still talking millions of people in the US, alone.

"Biological sex" really just is no more a simple binary than gender, sorry. Not if you're being factual and scientific about it. We can talk in generalities about both, but the fact is that humans do not collectively fit so neatly into two simple columns.

[zinderel]

Here, Mets. Educate yourself a bit.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...im-so-confused

https://www.refinery29.com/2017/11/1...sex-and-gender

https://familyinequality.wordpress.c...r-distinction/

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/...56384-0153.xml

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/le...ender-identity

It was super difficult to find these articles. I had to type "sex vs gender" into a google search and hit enter.

Turns out, 'sex' and 'gender' is a more complex topic than a dictionary definition used to justify dehumanization of a minority.

Who'd'athunk...

[PaulBullion]

One needs to be capable of critical thought to athunk it. Not something commonly found among GOP voters.

[Kevinroc]

With the GOP the cruelty is the point.

[Mister Mets]

So, Mets, lemme ask you something.

From your posting on the matter, you clearly view the latest Republican attempt to deny trans people any sense of agency or dignity as less of a 'human rights' thing and more of a 'clinical' thing, from which you have distanced all human emotion and experience in favor of focusing on one narrow, NARROW semantic argument while you ignore the broader scope and reality of the policy they want to enact - the latest in a long line of blows your party and president have levied against our trans brothers and sisters. You're caught up in the semantics of 'sex' as opposed to 'gender' and failing to see (willfully or not), how it will affect actual lives, while you focus on technicalities. You do this while YET AGAIN making an apologetics tour for yet another monstrously inhumane policy your transphobic president and party are considering.

So, my question: Do you know anyone/have any loved ones who are trans? Particularly MtF?

I do. I have people in my circle of friends, my FAMILY, who are trans, who will be affected - in an emotional, experiential, and tangible way - by this latest attempt to dehumanize and demean them and deny their existence, so I fail to see any 'nuance' in ANY attempt to deny their humanity by your party. You focus on the definition of 'sex' while ignoring the realities of what this policy will do to a minority that has ALWAYS been derided, abused, thrown away and denied basic humanity because of 'semantic', 'reasonable' arguments like yours.

So, second question: How do you sleep at night, knowing that your party is in the business of actively denying your fellow human being their inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless they're white, male, wealthy, Christian, and straight?

I think this is a complex issue, and I'm not going to pretend that it's solely clinical. However, in order to determine the policy prescription we should examine the clinical aspects, whether the executive branch was appropriately using its power, and what alternatives are available.

To answer the first question, I don't have anyone in my social circle who is trans. This isn't too unusual, since this is about 0.5 percent of the population, and I'm not involved in many circles in which I would be more likely than average to meet people who are trans. It's probably socially harmful to suggest that it should be acceptable to favor executive overreach just because it helps people you know.

On the second question, part of it would be that I think you're wrong, and that policy prescriptions come with tradeoffs. Things that are meant to help people do end up backfiring, but we do live in a society in which we've seen significant social change and progress.