70
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
70 points (100.0% liked)
U.S. News
2244 readers
42 users here now
News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.
Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Post the original source of information as the link.
- If there is any Nazi imagery in the linked story, mark your post NSFW.
- If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
- Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
- Social media is not a news source.
For World News, see the News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
that seems obtuse as well. why not define as if you have a y male and if you don't female. I am not endorsing this bill but their definition is horrible. I complain about "gender assigned at birth" phrase but boy it fits for this bill.
Kleinfelters is a thing. Some cis women have a Y chromosome and don't even know it until they happen to get a DNA test.
There's simply no good way to use strict definitions of sex to invalidate trans people without excluding some cis people as well.
yeah there are folks with medical conditions. that is true. this is one thing I fear about the ruckus we have around this nowadays. that it will essentially out them. Honestly I did not make up the cis word so im not sure if it applies. its again another recent type of thing.
Yeah, I wouldn't say with 100% conviction that 'cis' definitely applies to people with Klinefelter's. I actually used it without much consideration in this instance. While on one hand it is a medical condition similar to being trans, I don't know if it necessarily creates dysphoria that prompts transition. My impression is that Klinefelter's doesn't effect a person's alignment with their assigned at birth gender.
I could be completely wrong though, I don't know much about the experience of having Klinefelter's, it's just my suspicion is that it seems to be in the same family as being trans, but doesn't necessarily effect a person's neurological make-up the way being trans does, just some of their other sex characteristics.
Klinefelter syndrome occurs when a person who is assigned male at birth is born with an extra x chromosome. Most people with the condition are cisgender boys or men.
Being trans is not a medical condition, although many trans people have gender dysphoria, which is psychological distress a person may have due to identifying with a different gender than the one that they were assigned at birth.
Huh? Being trans is absolutely a medical condition. Many people die without appropriate treatment. Trans people are treated seriously by medical professionals because it's recognized as a legitimate medical need that cannot be resolved through therapy or socialization/conversion therapy. It's unclear what you're saying here, that it's a just social figment or something?
I'd go further, and say that anything that needs "just" therapy, is also a medical condition.
The mentality of "as long as it lets you work, it doesn't matter whether you suffer or not" is pretty inhumane, IMHO.
In a sense, yeah. Though things like trauma and PTSD are caused by experiences, where as being trans is probably more akin to being intersex. But yeah, no argument that mental health should be treated as seriously as physical health. Many societies fall short in treating either as particularly important.
Being trans itself is not a medical condition. It just means that someone identifies with a gender that is different than the one that was assigned at birth. There isn't any medical diagnosis or treatment required for someone to be considered a trans person. Many trans people do have gender dysphoria and that is what we receive treatment for.
I have a friend with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. She’s a woman, has always been a woman, is married to a man, and has two adopted kids (AIS means she’s sterile). She has XY chromosomes.
Is someone going to walk up to her and say, “Sorry, ma’am, you’re male now”?
Her gender assigned at birth was female. She was raised as a girl, always identified as a girl, and had no idea anything was different until she started having health problems at puberty.
Because they aren't interested in doing so, and know that there are no good ways to define these things.
What they want is the means to impose strict gender norms, and to persecute anyone who does not fit for any reason and in any way.
So, today they want workers who aren't super gender conforming to provide their birth certificates to use the restroom. Then they'll escalate until workers conform or get shoved out. After that, strict gender dress codes for all employees, then gender-specific roles... sometime down the line, a ban on married women working in state organisations, women unofficially barred from most workplaces & most roles, and ideally barred from being out of the house without a male relative as chaperone, blocked from having a bank account or owning property, and in due course... welp now they are property.
It’s probably specifically because they wanted to punt the intersex issue to the court system. Talking about chromosomes is too specific and measurable. Talking about sex in terms of being associated with gametes makes it more subjective.
Most likely any attempt at specific, verifiable definitions would be insufficient for their fascistic purpose. A biologist, Forrest Valkai, covers well the complexity involved when defining the social construct of sexual differentiation in a measurable way in the video Sex and Sensibility. Hence, the laws reliance on "reproductive role" while simply assuming some unstated definition of "biological sex".