How the Law (doesn't really), define "gender identity"

[Niatero]

Just today (or very recently), title IX was amended to protect people with different "gender identities". So basically ANYONE can claim a "gender identity", which is unfalsifiable, and compete in women's sports. And it's because "gender identity" is basically undefined.

And for the Nth time, here's a link to a list of over 600 women and girls who have lost in sporting events to men claiming a gender identity that allows them to punch down and compete against women:

List of Female Athletes by Sport | She Won

Why? Why is this happening?

Um, are you thinking that there was some kind of fairness in sports, and no kind of gaming, before all this happened?

 

[crossfire]

Yup, in retrospect "basing" was a poor word choice, good catch.

How about "altering and amending laws..." ?



That's a good goal. But the implementation details matter and these implementations are being taken advantage of (sometimes violently), by misogynists.

Again, the OP is focused on the term "gender identity" because it does so much heavy lifting in so many situations, we ought to have a solid definition. The best definitions I've seen are usually circular, usually unfalsifiable, and usually overly subjective. Those definitional problems make the phrase just too, too susceptible to abuse and misuse. And abuse and misuse are happening every day.

The definition referenced specifically in the OP is the definition as it relates to the anti discrimination declaration of rights. The given definition is more than sufficient in regard to these anti discrimination declarations. Since the video in the OP is specifically trying to deconstruct the definition of sexual orientation by attacking the gender identity portion of this definition in regard to anti discrimination declarations, one would likely conclude that the aim of doing this is to give any readers who want to discriminate against a given class the illusion of the license to do so by pleading that they are discriminating against an undefined class, when in fact that class is quite well defined and it is clear that discriminating against them would be against the declaration of rights.

There is also a problem with the OP's attempt to deconstruct the definition of gender identity: it uses the defintion of the classification of sex as "gender" as a means by which to attack a different classification, namely sexual orientation. Sex and Sexual orientation are two different things. (Two different individuals can be homosexual but can be different sexes, so sex and sexual orientation are not the same.) You cannot just strike out the terms of sex and gender within the sexual orientation definition and dismiss it as circular. This would be gutting the definition entirely. A more honest approach would be to use one term consistantly throughout the definition. So using the word gender throughout would be going from this:

​

(26) "Sex" means gender.​

(27) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. As used in this definition, "gender expression or identity" means having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.​

to this:

​

(26) "Sex" means gender.​

(27) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. As used in this definition, "gender expression or identity" means having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the gender assigned to that person at birth.​

Compare to the video in the OP which completely tries to gut the given definition.

 

[Estro Felino]

Femininity and Virility are very relative: they change according to the cultural context and the vision of a nation, or of a people.

For instance: I believe Hillary Clinton is as feminine as Mike Tyson...



As for the law, the law defines gender according to the legislation about the gender change.
A judge must ascertain your situation and decide about your gender. There is even the district attorney that controls the procedure.

 

[Niatero]

Yeah, dismissal of the current medical

How is "whatever a person thinks they are" a "medical" understanding?

 

[Niatero]

It's not the 1%or 2%, it's the 50%+ of women and girls losing safety and their rights that make this topic important.

That looks like an exaggeration to me. I agree that there is harm and danger, sometimes grievous, to multitudes of women and children, from the new laws and policies, but far from all of them.

As time goes on I see more and more that gender ideology is a new religion. I think if it was seen as a religion a lot of confusion would be cleared up, and a lot of bad outcomes would be reduced.

That's okay with me if you agree to call liberalism, modernism, enlightenment ideology, freedoms ideology, and growth economics ideology religions.

"Gender Identity" is basically an undefined term in the law.

By "undefined," do you mean that there's no objective way to measure it? Obviously, because it's subjective by definition. If you see the subjectivity as a problem, can you say any more about why it's a problem?

... WPATH files and the Cass report.

In my view that's the tip of an iceberg, which is corruption in the medical industry. Well, actually, corruption in all the institutions of society.

If so, sports is a major part of Title IX, and if you do a search on the word "sports" in your document you'll find many occurrences.

If you're concerned about people being unfairly matched by physique, then I would want that to be resolved by physique measurements that are relevant for each sport, and not by birth-assigned sex or by gender, either one.

Yup, in retrospect "basing" was a poor word choice, good catch.
How about "altering and amending laws..." ?

I'm not sure what I think about sorting people by gender for legal and policy purposes, but I do object to circumventing democratic processes for new laws and policies by changing key words in them or changing their definitions.

 

[icehorse]

California most definitely defines “gender identity.” Here you go: Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 2, § 11030 - Definitions

Yes, and this is a perfect example of the kinds of word salad "definitions" I'm talking about. The definitions you just provided are circular.

 

[icehorse]

That's okay with me if you agree to call liberalism, modernism, enlightenment ideology, freedoms ideology, and growth economics ideology religions.

Could be, I'd need to see some of your definitions. But for example, I would agree that the idea that "economies must grow endlessly to be healthy" strikes me as a religious belief, and of course a dangerous and false one.

By "undefined," do you mean that there's no objective way to measure it? Obviously, because it's subjective by definition. If you see the subjectivity as a problem, can you say any more about why it's a problem?

Did you look at any of the videos in the OP. They're very similar, if you spend 3 minutes viewing one of them, you'll understand what I mean when I say "undefined". Put another way, the definitions are so weak that they are meaningless.

In my view that's the tip of an iceberg, which is corruption in the medical industry. Well, actually, corruption in all the institutions of society.

Agreed.

If you're concerned about people being unfairly matched by physique, then I would want that to be resolved by physique measurements that are relevant for each sport, and not by birth-assigned sex or by gender, either one.

The current system is imperfect, but that's no reason to allow it to become worse.

 

[icehorse]

Since the video in the OP is specifically trying to deconstruct the definition of sexual orientation by attacking the gender identity portion of this definition in regard to anti discrimination declarations, one would likely conclude that the aim of doing this is to give any readers who want to discriminate against a given class the illusion of the license to do so by pleading that they are discriminating against an undefined class, when in fact that class is quite well defined and it is clear that discriminating against them would be against the declaration of rights.

I don't think "sexual orientation" is relevant in a definition of "gender identity". If you think it is, can you explain how?

And again, I agree that trans people sometimes need the support of anti-discrimination laws. But these poorly worded definitions are allowing misogynists to harm women and girls.

You cannot just strike out the terms of sex and gender within the sexual orientation definition and dismiss it as circular. This would be gutting the definition entirely. A more honest approach would be to use one term consistantly throughout the definition. So using the word gender throughout would be going from this:

That's not why the video struck out the terms. It was phrases like "may or may not be" that render whatever follows to be useless in a definition.

For example we could say: "gender identity is whatever a person thinks their gender is, which may or may not include also thinking they are orange grizzly bears". The problem isn't with the orange grizzly bears, it's with the "may or may not".

(26) "Sex" means gender.(27) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. As used in this definition, "gender expression or identity" means having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the gender assigned to that person at birth.

While I have several issues with the above, the key point is that everything and anything that follows the phrase "whether or not" can logically be thrown out, as it adds nothing to the definition.

 

[Niatero]

Did you look at any of the videos in the OP. They're very similar, if you spend 3 minutes viewing one of them, you'll understand what I mean when I say "undefined". Put another way, the definitions are so weak that they are meaningless.

I think I already understand what you're saying. With the camouflage removed, the definitions all reduce to "a person's gender is whatever they think their gender is." I agree that looks circular but I actually I don't think it is. Anyway, saying that it's circular and undefined looks like a useless distraction to me. In practice it means that a person's gender is whatever they say it is. Maybe your point is that it doesn't communicate anything about a person other than what they say their gender is, and that might not be a good way of sorting people for legal and policy purposes?

 

[icehorse]

Maybe your point is that it doesn't communicate anything about a person other than what they say their gender is, and that might not be a good way of sorting people for legal and policy purposes?

bingo

 

[Niatero]

I don't think "sexual orientation" is relevant in a definition of "gender identity". If you think it is, can you explain how?

It looks like the other way around to me. It looks to me like crossfire is saying that gender identity is relevant in a definition of "sexual orientation," which I think is true.

 

[icehorse]

It looks like the other way around to me. It looks to me like crossfire is saying that gender identity is relevant in a definition of "sexual orientation," which I think is true.

I would say that "gender identity" is often independent of sexual orientation, no?

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, and this is a perfect example of the kinds of word salad "definitions" I'm talking about. The definitions you just provided are circular.

It’s not circular. You just don’t like it.

 

[icehorse]

It’s not circular. You just don’t like it.

I don't like them because they're poorly executed.

They include the phrases: "whether or not", "includes not limited to", and "which may include". These phrases render everything that follows useless verbiage.

The "sex assigned at birth" is used, and this is a gender ideology phrase, not a scientific one.

And they never define gender, so using the word gender to define aspects of gender is circular.

 

[Niatero]

I would say that "gender identity" is often independent of sexual orientation, no?

Sexual orientation is not part of the definition of “gender identity,” but gender identity is part of the definition of “sexual orientation.”

 

[McBell]

I don't like them because they're poorly executed.

They include the phrases: "whether or not", "includes not limited to", and "which may include". These phrases render everything that follows useless verbiage.

The "sex assigned at birth" is used, and this is a gender ideology phrase, not a scientific one.

And they never define gender, so using the word gender to define aspects of gender is circular.

How about you provide us with a definition of "gender identity" you would accept?

 

[Niatero]

bingo

Also, sorting people that way for legal and policy purposes is disappointing for me, because it validates gender stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination when I thought the world was moving away from those.

 

[icehorse]

Sexual orientation is not part of the definition of “gender identity,” but gender identity is part of the definition of “sexual orientation.”

If so, that's a bad definition. If you name a "gender identity" (and good luck with that), it's easy to see how that gives us no clues as to that person's sexual orientation.

How about you provide us with a definition of "gender identity" you would accept?

I think it's a product of magical thinking and therefore should not be a part of any laws. Let's try this, can you name a "gender identity" that's falsifiable?

 

[Niatero]

If so, that's a bad definition. If you name a "gender identity" (and good luck with that), it's easy to see how that gives us no clues as to that person's sexual orientation.


I think it's a product of magical thinking and therefore should not be a part of any laws. Let's try this, can you name a "gender identity" that's falsifiable?

Gender identity wasn't always part of the definition of "sexual orientation," but it has been ever since the zombie virus idea of gender identity started spreading.

 

[Niatero]

How about you provide us with a definition of "gender identity" you would accept?

Excuse me for butting in, but I think the working definition of "whatever a person says they are" is fine. My problem is with sorting people that way for legal and policy purposes. That's disappointing to me because it validates and legalizes gender stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination, when I thought the world was moving away from those.

(later) I think I understand the problems that people think they're trying to solve, but I don't agree with trying to solve them in ways that validate and intensify race and gender stereotypes and prejudices, and animosities and hostilities across belief divides.