• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Social Justice Transgender and gender identity discussion

Law to Protect Women Against Domestic Violence Forces Shelters to House Transgender Men

APRIL 02, 2019

The renewal of a law enacted decades ago to protect women against domestic violence crimes is full of leftist statutory devices and entitlements, restricts gun rights and requires the nation’s prisons to accommodate criminals based on their gender identity. If the measure, introduced in the House of Representatives last month, passes it will also defund women’s shelters because they cater to females and don’t allow transgender men who might self-identify as women.


Originally passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has been renewed and broadened over the years to fund agencies that offer victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse social services. It receives hundreds of millions of dollars from American taxpayers annually. Last year Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee introduced a VAWA reauthorization loaded with similar prohibitions on gun ownership and leftist policies as the version currently floating around the House. Fortunately, the bill was never brought to committee or the House floor for a vote but many of its outrageous provisions have made it to the 2019 measure, which was introduced early last month by California Democrat Karen Bass and Pennsylvania Republican Brian Fitzpatrick. “The bill improves on current law by improving services for survivors of violence, expanding housing protections for survivors, and expanding relevant training for school based and campus health centers,” according to a statement issued by Congressman Fitzpatrick. “It includes services for young people to combat bullying, education youth on how to prevent violence, and helping children exposed to violence.”


In the press release Fitzpatrick, a former FBI agent, fails to mention various Bolshevik ideas that are being advanced in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019. Among them are measures restricting gun ownership, the creation of an alternative justice system to avoid law enforcement and preposterous housing policies that, among other things, protect criminal activity. It also requires the nation’s prisons to incarcerate transgender convicts according to the gender they identify with and women’s domestic violence shelters to take in men that identify as women. The 2019 reauthorization creates a new protected class under “gender discrimination” and specifically prohibits sex segregation in sleeping and housing facilities and leads to the elimination of “women” shelters/transitional housing/sleeping facilities.


A Republican congresswoman from Arizona is trying to eliminate that provision from the bill. Her name is Debbie Lesko, a survivor of domestic violence, and she believes it’s wrong to force women’s shelters to take in men. “If this is called the Violence Against Women Act, it is not fair that the government is forcing these organizations to take in biological males to be sleeping right next to biological women,” Lesko said in a recent news report. “I don’t think that’s fair to the women.” In a mainstream newspaper story the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler, countered that “transgender women are not biological males; they are transgender women. That’s simply a reality. I know there are people who deny that reality, but I think it is a reality.” Jackson Lee, the veteran Texas congresswoman who has sponsored bills to legalize illegal immigrants and honor pedophile singer Michael Jackson, claims the 2019 VAWA is about protecting people and is therefore “gender-neutral.”


Here are some other concerning additions in the reauthorization bill; Housing programs require mortgagors to require eviction prevention by including protection for “criminal activity.” It also mandates that no person may deny tenancy or occupancy solely on the basis of criminal activity, including drug-related offenses. New gun provisions include a requirement that firearms be relinquished based on a broad definition of an “order” without notifying the accused. Felony convictions are not required to relinquish firearms under the bill and guns can be confiscated based on any “protective” order, which can come from divorce proceedings or include temporary or consent orders. New employment standards expand labor laws to include victim service providers and unemployment compensation for “victims.” It also requires employers to allow anyone who identifies as a victim to leave work and forces employers to continue to pay the said victim’s salary.

 
Oh, yeah I did misunderstand, lol.

Ok so my reply to what you meant, it's very hard for me to imagine how I'd feel being beaten in that kinda situation since me competing at the olympics or some kind of big competitive sport is so far removed from me in reality it's hard to contemplate what I'd think.

I don't consider sports to be hugely important in society. But for arguments sake, I'd just like some evidence to make a decision with. Like I don't enormously care in reality, but for the purposes of discussions, if it were for some reason my job to care and find a solution. I'd want evidence.

If there were evidence that male to female transgender people who are hormonally the same as their identified gender still retain a notable physical advantage, then I'd call that reason to ban them from the women's category. And if the reverse, then they don't get banned.

If it's unfair for the majority of players, you ban them, if it isn't, you don't. Seems like the best option to me. I'd just like some data rather than guesswork.

That said, since sport is not something I find very interesting or important, even if it were unfair for them to compete and in spite of that they were for some reason allowed, while I'd agree it was unfair. It wouldn't exactly outrage me.

As it stands I'm not aware of such comprehensive evidence existing yet, so I don't really have an opinion yet.
 
I'm really bored and very drunk and on a bit of speed so I'm going to make the mistake of responding to this shitpost seriously. Not to convince you personally, something tells me that would be a lost cause, but for any on-lookers who might be on the fence.

For one, gender has never meant the same thing as sex[1]. It was specifically used by psychologists to refer to "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex or the other[2]. The misuse of the word by well meaning scientists who wished to be more politically correct by refering to "gender" instead of "sex" in their studies is largely what caused this confusion. As well as the fact that features which fall under gender (i.e. behavior such as clothing, demeanor, interests, and self-image) are much more outwardly apparent. You can't tell what chromosomes people have just by looking at them (more on this in a moment). The inappropriate use of a word that refers entirely to a behavioral phenomenon in place of one that refers to a biological phenomenon has seriously mislead some people into ignoring the very real differences between the sexes. Most animals don't have a concept of gender as opposed to sex because they don't have the kind of social relationships that humans, primates, and a few other animals have[3]. Same-sex sexual activity is a very well documented phenomenon in the animal kingdom[4], and there's no way to ask an animal if they're doing what they do because they're simply attracted to the same sex or because they feel like the opposite sex. It's also irrelevant.

To return to sex, sex is a bimodal not a binary. What this means is that while typically there are specific traits associated with sex, as we are a sexually dimorphic species, it's not a rigid black or white, one or the other, scenario. Take for instance, androgen insensitivity. This is a condition wherein an individual is born with XY chromosomes but their bodies do not respond to male hormones. This results in an individual being born with mostly or entirely female characteristics and typically a person who is androgen insensitive only realizes this when they reach puberty and do not begin menstruating[5]. So this obviously disproves the notion that sex (and subsequently gender) is determined by your chromosomes, which no serious scientist has ever contended and is only believed by reactionaries with a secondary school level understanding of biology. Those who have androgen insensitivity are part of a larger group known as intersex people. If you define intersex as people who have genital features of the opposite sex as well as individuals who have hormonal and neurological characteristics more resemblant of the opposite sex, as many as 1 in 60 people on average might meet the qualifications of being intersex[6]. If you restrict it to only individuals who have genital abnormalities, that number is about 1 in 1500[7].

Regardless, the existence of intersex people is further scientific evidence which proves the notion that sex (and subsequently gender) is not this rigid, immutable characteristic. Additionally, as is obviously apparent, those on hormone replacement therapy begin to take on the physical characteristics of the sex in which they are transitioning to[7], which further disproves the notion that sex is immutable as even without introducing hormones into the body, levels constantly fluctuate, and many people experience hormone production typically associated with the opposite sex completely naturally, and subsequently they may take on some characteristics of that sex. An important point here is that hormone replacement therapy is the treatment for gender dysphoria a condition in which an individual's experienced gender does not match their sex[7]. As if all of this wasn't enough, the broad acceptance of HRT as the treatment for gender dysphoria is one more nail in the coffin for the idea that gender and sex are the same thing. It simply isn't true.

Now, to tackle non-binary people, as I have a vested interested in this. If gender is an entirely social concept, as we have already established, it follows that there is no reason to think that one could not simultaneously experience characteristics typically associated with one gender while also experiencing those typically associated with another gender. Rather than reducing this experience to epithets such as "tom boy" or "nancy girl", it makes more sense to suggest that these people may experience gender differently than people who are either comfortable with the gender they were assigned at birth or fully identify with the opposite gender[8]. Broadly speaking, an individual may experience that they simultaneous have characteristics of both genders (bigender), do not believe that any characteristic which describes them fits into a particular gender (agender), or believe that their gendered qualities change over time (genderfluid)[9]. Additionally, for millennia, various cultures have recognized the existence of a "third gender" or "two-spirit", and this concept, rooted as it is in complex social circumstances, does not conform to any of these aforementioned identities and represents another unique gender identity[10][11].

Given the colorful language which you used, I have a feeling that we make you very uncomfortable. Maybe it's because we remind you that some of the things you hold dear are in fact relatively meaningless, objectively speaking. Maybe its your social conditioning, having been raised in a society in which prejudice towards sexual minorities was accepted. Maybe it's your desire to put yourself above others by any means necessary. I don't know. I don't really care. I don't know you, you don't know me. Your beliefs have no bearing on my life whatsoever. So why did I take the time out of my life to write all this and find all these sources? One, because I enjoy science and philosophy, this is fun for me. And two because, like I said, I need to inform others, who may have never given this issue any thought, of the objective reality of the situation. You can feel uncomfortable around me, you can hate me, you can wish I didn't exist, I don't care. But that's not a valid argument. Facts don't care about your feelings.

1. https://www.dictionary.com/e/gender-vs-sex/
2. https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00376.2005
3. https://psmag.com/environment/do-animals-have-gender-roles
4. http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/
5. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome
6. Blackless, Melanie; Charuvastra, Anthony; Derryck, Amanda; Fausto-Sterling, Anne; Lauzanne, Karl; Lee, Ellen (March 2000). "How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis". American Journal of Human Biology.
7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182227/
8. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-44/resources/advocacy/non-binary-facts.pdf
9. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201503/none-the-above
10. https://cas.uab.edu/humanrights/2018/10/29/indias-relationship-with-the-third-gender/
11. https://www.ihs.gov/lgbt/health/twospirit/
Damn good post.
 
Does anyone have a problem with Desmond is Amazing and other drag children?
 
Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen are much more well known kids who made a living in fashion while being kids.

Why would I have a problem with kids living the American dream? Doing it better than most adults I might add.
 
National treasure!
zSiKgHr.jpg


Yuck!
dYjOaBS.jpg
 
Top