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

[Niatero]

Sorry to but in, but I have women friends who appreciate my efforts to fight misogyny, and I'm also fighting for my wife and daughters

Understood.

 

[Niatero]

The ironic humor of not sorting people according to gender and calling this a safe space for women is not lost on me.

Me either. I'm tempted to do some mansplaining, but I won't. (Because I haven't worked it out yet. )

(later) I'm unwatching this thread.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Gender Identity" (air quotes deliberate), is clearly a hot topic these days. And it's clear from many debates here on RF that there is a lot of confusion concerning how sex and gender relate to each other as concepts.

Just to a few such as yourself.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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

I didn't say "whatever a person thinks they are"; I was referring to the current medical understanding that gender is not a strict binary but rather a spectrum.

 

[icehorse]

You do understand that this argument is just another way of saying shut the **** up?

Not at all. We're talking about legal claims here. The rules of logic apply. When a phrase like "whether or not" shows up in a legal claim, everything that follows in that sentence is without legal meaning.

So you are blaming the anti-discrimination declarations for such behavior?

I am saying that these poorly written laws are creating new opportunities for bad actors. Let's zoom out for a minute. Wouldn't you agree that whenever a new law is put into place, people will test it's limits? They will try to find ways to take advantage?

That's what's happening here.

The term is gender identity not just gender.

A so-called flaming gay gender expression or identity is called flaming because the person is making it obvious that they are a man who is also a homosexual. That is the role in society that person is taking up, advertising by way of presentation and seeking to fulfill.

I hope you can see how slippery all of these definitions are. You've just added a new one "gender expression" so that you could try to explain this. With that said, and taking your example, how are we to tell the difference between your flaming gay and a drag queen?

Would you say that doing away with laws addressing discrimination and abuse associated with gender identity will make the abuse magically disappear?
[satire] Observe, I will make this disappear by sweeping it under the carpet! See! All gone! Just don't look under the carpet, or you will break the magical spell! [/satire]

Haven't I told you that I agree we need to fight discrimination? Can't you just take "yes" for an answer on this point?

 

[icehorse]

The ironic humor of not sorting people according to gender and calling this a safe space for women is not lost on me.

You seem to be conflating sex with gender here ?

 

[icehorse]

Just to a few such as yourself.

what's your definition of "gender identity"?

 

[crossfire]

Not at all. We're talking about legal claims here. The rules of logic apply. When a phrase like "whether or not" shows up in a legal claim, everything that follows in that sentence is without legal meaning.

Link from legal expert to support your claim, please.

I am saying that these poorly written laws are creating new opportunities for bad actors. Let's zoom out for a minute. Wouldn't you agree that whenever a new law is put into place, people will test it's limits? They will try to find ways to take advantage?

That's what's happening here.

What it would appear from the video in the OP is that goal here is to look for loopsholes by which they can encourage discrimination against transpeople.

I hope you can see how slippery all of these definitions are. You've just added a new one "gender expression" so that you could try to explain this. With that said, and taking your example, how are we to tell the difference between your flaming gay and a drag queen?

A flaming gay's expression is part of their personality. A drag queen is an actor doing their bit.

Haven't I told you that I agree we need to fight discrimination? Can't you just take "yes" for an answer on this point?

Then quit posting threads attacking antidiscrimination declarations!

 

[McBell]

what's your definition of "gender identity"?

What is yours?

 

[icehorse]

A flaming gay's expression is part of their personality. A drag queen is an actor doing their bit.

How would you know that's the case for the drag queen? I think the drag queen could potentially have any number of sexual identities.

Then quit posting threads attacking antidiscrimination declarations!

I think that when you support the declarations I'm criticizing, you are supporting discrimination against women. Stop doing that!

 

[crossfire]

How would you know that's the case for the drag queen? I think the drag queen could potentially have any number of sexual identities.

Indeed, Drag Queen is not a gender identity, so it doesn't say anything about their gender identity. The definition is that of a performer.

drag queen
[ˈdraɡ ˌkwēn]
noun
drag queen (noun) · drag queens (plural noun)

1. a performer (typically a man) who adopts a flamboyant or parodic feminine persona, with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup.

I think that when you support the declarations I'm criticizing, you are supporting discrimination against women. Stop doing that!

Since you haven't been able to produce any evidence that these declarations are supporting discrimination against women, I can dismiss your opinion as unsupported.

 

[icehorse]

Since you haven't been able to produce any evidence that these declarations are supporting discrimination against women, I can dismiss your opinion as unsupported.

hehehe, I love this gambit Can you remind me when it was decided that you'd the arbiter of this debate? hehehe

Examples are easy to find, you just have to dust off your browser, but here's a couple to get you started:

shewon.org

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774749954629652873

scroll to the top of the tweet for the second link

 

[crossfire]

hehehe, I love this gambit Can you remind me when it was decided that you'd the arbiter of this debate? hehehe

Examples are easy to find, you just have to dust off your browser, but here's a couple to get you started:

shewon.org

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774749954629652873

scroll to the top of the tweet for the second link

Is this somehow specifically linked to the Washington State declaration against discrimination RCW's from the OP?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That seems like a cop out to me. I notice for example, that you've remained silent concerning the release of the WPATH files and the Cass report. Both of those important events completely support my earlier concerns about gender affirming care. When we debated those topics several months ago you felt it appropriate to repeatedly excoriate me on those topics.

So it's ironic that you're now declaring that we cannot have productive discussion. For months I tried to have productive conversations with you, and you made it impossible. Now that I'm proven right your tactic is this? wow!

The Cass Report is a politically motivated report. You should reject it on the same basis that you reject anything from WPATH.

 

[icehorse]

The Cass Report is a politically motivated report. You should reject it on the same basis that you reject anything from WPATH.

Wait, what? The Cass report is basically a harsh criticism of WPATH. Can you clarify what you said above?

And then, explain how the Cass report is politically motivated. Are you saying the NHS England is politically motivated?

 

[Kfox]

"Gender Identity" (air quotes deliberate), is clearly a hot topic these days. And it's clear from many debates here on RF that there is a lot of confusion concerning how sex and gender relate to each other as concepts.

The following four (short) videos analyze how Washington state, Oregon, California, and Colorado define "gender identity" in their statutes.

As a summary, they don't really define it at all. They throw words at the problem, but in the end, no definition is forthcoming, at least in these four states. And I would suspect that it's not much better elsewhere.

It strikes me that "gender identity" has a lot of similarities with religion or other constructs of magical thinking. That's not good news in a country that purports to separate church from state

That's what you get when you have people who can't explain the difference between a man vs woman, trying to explain gender identity.

 

[Watchmen]

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.

The California law doesn’t use “whether or not.” The other phrases are common in the law. Do you have a problem with those other laws too or only the one that reveals your phobia?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think Indian Supreme Court is very clear on this. Why should courts decide gender-identity of a person? Let them do it on their own. It has been the law since 2014.

"Everyone is entitled to enjoy all human rights without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Everyone is entitled to equality before the law and the equal protection of the law without any such discrimination whether or not the enjoyment of another human right is also affected." Google Search 15 Apr 2014

"Transgender persons’ right to decide their self-identified gender is also upheld and the Center and State Governments are directed to grant legal recognition of their gender identity such as male, female or as third gender."
https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/41411.pdf (Page 127 onward)

 

[icehorse]

The California law doesn’t use “whether or not.” The other phrases are common in the law. Do you have a problem with those other laws too or only the one that reveals your phobia?

well spotted! I have pooly-written-law-phobia.

 

[Kfox]

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.

I agree! They've made the term "gender" meaningless. That's why I don't refer to gender anymore, I refer to sexual biology; which is binary. There is no they/them, Ze, Xi, etc; only male and female. Like they say; I like to go with the science.