Quote from: PhoenixGurl2016 on October 24, 2018, 01:02:20 AM
This thread is why we are where we are and is why we all will be damned if we don't unite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what's the answer? All I've seen is vote blue. The dems only care for us slightly more then the republicans, Under Obama they had several years they could have acted on our behalf, signed anti hate bills into law, made a constitutional amendment to protect everyone and they didn't. They just pander to us and throw us a tiny bone every once in awhile to get our vote. We do need to unite but the answer is not one party or the other. I'm gonna vote blue in this election for the first time ever but I still don't think it's the answer.

Quote from: Danni98 on October 24, 2018, 01:08:51 AM
So what's the answer? All I've seen is vote blue. The dems only care for us slightly more then the republicans, Under Obama they had several years they could have acted on our behalf, signed anti hate bills into law, made a constitutional amendment to protect everyone and they didn't. They just pander to us and throw us a tiny bone every once in awhile to get our vote. We do need to unite but the answer is not one party or the other. I'm gonna vote blue in this election for the first time ever but I still don't think it's the answer.

I was discussing something like this at a shoot. Another shooter I knew well said you should pick one issue that's most important to you and vote for the person most likely to make that possible. Because he was a shooter, he voted for the person most likely to support the second amendment. Something sounded a bit off with his reasoning so I thought about it for a while. I decided that the most important issue was a person who would completely back the constitution as without it you have no freedom.

You are free to decide that I don't have it right either and decide some other issue is more important. Just remember Benjamin Franklin "They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Quote from: Cindy on October 23, 2018, 05:26:33 PM
A response by WPATH and USPATH was released overnight you can read it here

https://www.wpath.org/

WPATH Board Responds to Federal Effort to Redefine Gender -

Cindy, I'm struggling to find this content? X

Sent from my MI 5s using Tapatalk

@Megan

its further down on the right.

https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/Newsroom/Global%20Impact/WPATH%20Board%20Response%20to%20Redefine%20Gender%2010.23.18.pdf

Sonja.

Quote from: Sonja on October 24, 2018, 02:28:59 AM
@Megan

its further down on the right.

https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/Newsroom/Global%20Impact/WPATH%20Board%20Response%20to%20Redefine%20Gender%2010.23.18.pdf

Sonja.

Tnx [emoji4]. X

Sent from my MI 5s using Tapatalk

Quote from: Dena on October 24, 2018, 01:40:56 AM
I was discussing something like this at a shoot. Another shooter I knew well said you should pick one issue that's most important to you and vote for the person most likely to make that possible. Because he was a shooter, he voted for the person most likely to support the second amendment. Something sounded a bit off with his reasoning so I thought about it for a while. I decided that the most important issue was a person who would completely back the constitution as without it you have no freedom.

You are free to decide that I don't have it right either and decide some other issue is more important. Just remember Benjamin Franklin "They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I voted for Bush jr. every other election I wrote in Ron or Rand Paul, I know I wasted my vote but at least I knew I could walk away having voted for a person that understands liberty. I generally back a pro 2nd candidate as well because if they take that right there is nothing stopping them from taking the rest.

Here is the full statement by WPATH for information only, apologies if its already been posted:

"On October 21, 2018, the New York Times published "'Transgender' Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration," in which journalists Erica L. Green, Katie Benner, and Robert Pear wrote that the "administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law. The press releases below, from WPATH and our US regional chapter, USPATH, present this Association's immediate response. Further efforts will include preparing the scientific arguments to be delivered during the 60-day comment period once the new regulations are proposed in the Federal Register.

For Immediate Release

East Dundee, IL: October 23, 2018 WPATH Board Responds to Federal Effort to Redefine Gender The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Board of Directors expresses its strongest disagreement with the intention of the Trump administration to define human gender as the sex recorded at birth based on visible genital formation and to restrict changes, all via regulation. It has been known for decades that sex and gender cannot be determined solely by birth anatomy or chromosomes. More recently, the durable biological underpinnings for gender identity have become better understood within the mainstream medical and scientific communities. Further, the targeting of individuals or groups to deny medically-indicated care represents a violation of the professional oaths taken by us in the medical provider community. The Trump administration's past efforts to erase transgender people from American society indicate that its officials believe that XX or XY chromosomal testing to be definitive and definitional. However, this testing is insufficient to measure the known factors that affect the actual sex or gender of a sentient human being.  To acknowledge the diversity of sex and/or gender present in all human beings gives life and potential to those millions of people whose characteristics are not simply defined by sex chromosomes. Over the past 30 years, litigation throughout all levels of the US judicial system has proven time and again that human beings who are not reducible to chromosomes do deserve full equality, including access to employment, housing, public accommodations, education, and health care, along with all rights conferred by the US Constitution. 
WPATH member physicians and researchers stand ready to testify before Congress to protect and defend the health and well-being of all transgender and gendernonconforming people."

https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/Newsroom/Global%20Impact/WPATH%20Board%20Response%20to%20Redefine%20Gender%2010.23.18.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html

Quote from: Danni98 on October 24, 2018, 01:08:51 AM
Under Obama they had several years they could have acted on our behalf, signed anti hate bills into law, made a constitutional amendment to protect everyone and they didn't.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree on that. As a leader, Barack moved the bar considerably in pushing understanding. I worked for the man and the reason was he went to the August 2007 logo/hrc forum where all candidates were invited to speak to LGBT issues so we would know where they stood (predictably no Republican candidates accepted, that ought to tell you alone how little support we get there).

Anyway, Obama spoke the word "transgender". That was all he needed to do. Just four years before that the Advocate was still running anti-trans opinion pieces.

I was astounded, we couldn't even get support from the larger queer community and here was a credible candidate for national office with the intelligence and bravery to call us out not as the T hanging off the relatively new acronym LGBT. I spent 10 days in Ohio using my vacation to work 14 hours a day to help put him over the top.

As to what he accomplished, 2 years was given to establishing universal health care. He managed to pass it even after Massachusetts Dems ran a lackluster party stalwart for the Senate seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy. Had the Dems not screwed that up, a single payer system was on the table. Because he then had a republican Senate to deal with, the ACA was passed with a huge give-away to the insurance industry.

Obama made huge inroads into supporting our community, not the least of which has been Medicaid funded transition for some of our most vulnerable members.

Of course the Dems ran another party stalwart in 2016 with the result we're facing today. Bernie probably would have beaten Trump.

This too will pass. My millennial students have gone from politically lackluster  to angry and engaged. In time they will be heard.

QuoteSo what's the answer? All I've seen is vote blue. The dems only care for us slightly more then the republicans, Under Obama they had several years they could have acted on our behalf, signed anti hate bills into law, made a constitutional amendment to protect everyone and they didn't.

As I recall, Obama did a fair bit, despite Repubs trying to block him on so many issues.  Much of Trump's agenda seems to be about undoing what Obama accomplished.  We have a similar situation in Ontario, where the new Premier is focused on undoing what the previous one did.  Among other things, cutting minimum wage, while promising to put more money into the pockets of Ontario residents, promising no cuts, while cutting, etc.

Quote from: SadieBlake on October 24, 2018, 05:38:42 AM

This too will pass. My millennial students have gone from politically lackluster  to angry and engaged. In time they will be heard.

I do very much hope so!  I am now a pretty old political activist for the liberal rights of our society, and I was always disappointed how little politically involved the generation of my son was.  An entire generation just focused on how much and how fast they could buy the currently in gadget, etc.  But that was the generation Y, the early starters of the millennial people.  But they would not be students anymore, now they have to pay their bills for their fancy trucks and Harley', etc.  They would have no time to be political active or even interested. 
My wife (an educator) and I were both pretty active.  Here us older folks took to the streets for different reasons for the future of the kids, while the kids stayed home to play Nintendo!

I hope you are right with your assessment of the younger millennials!

A quick question if anyone would be kind enough to answer it. (Is it me or is there a fatal flaw in the definition that Trump is trying to push through?) If according to the definition that they are determining sex by either the genitals or by DNA, how then are they going to deal with those who are 46XX/46XY etc with ambiguous genitals? Can any of them explain exactly how they are going to use science to determine WHICH gender they are in those cases?

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 24, 2018, 08:48:25 AM
A quick question if anyone would be kind enough to answer it. (Is it me or is there a fatal flaw in the definition that Trump is trying to push through?) If according to the definition that they are determining sex by either the genitals or by DNA, how then are they going to deal with those who are 46XX/46XY etc with ambiguous genitals? Can any of them explain exactly how they are going to use science to determine WHICH gender they are in those cases?

This was simple for my generation at least (I might be one of those persons).  Some quick cuts, a little bit of sutures and the gender was precisely defined.  It was decided that I will be a male!  Periode!  I have no idea who made the decission or why it was made.  I just have to live with the consequences!

Quote from: Dietlind on October 24, 2018, 09:01:57 AM
This was simple for my generation at least (I might be one of those persons).  Some quick cuts, a little bit of sutures and the gender was precisely defined.  It was decided that I will be a male!  Periode!  I have no idea who made the decission or why it was made.  I just have to live with the consequences!

And how many people did they screw up because of it? That was also usually not done by scientific facts but by subjective interpretation of what they thought was best at that time.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 24, 2018, 09:24:51 AM
And how many people did they screw up because of it? That was also usually not done by scientific facts but by subjective interpretation of what they thought was best at that time.

You bet, when I was born it was very important to have as many men as possible.  Soldiers were needed, and women could not become soldiers at that time.  I think that this was the main reason that I became a male baby!
I don't know if my life was screwed up, because I grew up in a very loving environment, and was always surrounded by people who cared for me.  Would I have had a better life as a girl?  I don't know!  My sister had an as good life, but was not as successful in it as I was (professional and with personal relations).

It is now, way later in live that i am almost hurting to get out of that partially male looking body of which I feel I was never supposed to be in!  It could be that I am now free of any society pressure and can be what I want to be?
In some other contributions I wrote that my body is growing breasts, and I am not on hormones.  Could that be that finally my body and my brain are on the same song sheet?

Again, I have no idea how many lives were screwed up!  I might be one of the very few lucky ones who had not that many problems because of the decisions made when I was a new born?

Quote from: SadieBlake on October 24, 2018, 05:38:42 AM
I'm sorry, I have to disagree on that. As a leader, Barack moved the bar considerably in pushing understanding. I worked for the man and the reason was he went to the August 2007 logo/hrc forum where all candidates were invited to speak to LGBT issues so we would know where they stood (predictably no Republican candidates accepted, that ought to tell you alone how little support we get there).

Anyway, Obama spoke the word "transgender". That was all he needed to do. Just four years before that the Advocate was still running anti-trans opinion pieces.

I was astounded, we couldn't even get support from the larger queer community and here was a credible candidate for national office with the intelligence and bravery to call us out not as the T hanging off the relatively new acronym LGBT. I spent 10 days in Ohio using my vacation to work 14 hours a day to help put him over the top.

As to what he accomplished, 2 years was given to establishing universal health care. He managed to pass it even after Massachusetts Dems ran a lackluster party stalwart for the Senate seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy. Had the Dems not screwed that up, a single payer system was on the table. Because he then had a republican Senate to deal with, the ACA was passed with a huge give-away to the insurance industry.

Obama made huge inroads into supporting our community, not the least of which has been Medicaid funded transition for some of our most vulnerable members.

Of course the Dems ran another party stalwart in 2016 with the result we're facing today. Bernie probably would have beaten Trump.

This too will pass. My millennial students have gone from politically lackluster  to angry and engaged. In time they will be heard.

I think you're giving him too much credit. Lot's in the lgb portion still hate us, it's the kids driving our acceptance. The medicaid stuff, lol congrats, I have it as I'm a care giver and can't get a regular job. And I still have to pay for all my trans stuff, dr's visits and Hrt out of pocket. The rest, sorry not everyone likes socialism.

QuoteAnd I still have to pay for all my trans stuff, dr's visits and Hrt out of pocket. The rest, sorry not everyone likes socialism.

Well, here in Ontario, all those things are or may be covered under our health care, at no cost to the individual.

Quote from: Danni98 on October 24, 2018, 12:34:15 PM
I think you're giving him too much credit. Lot's in the lgb portion still hate us, it's the kids driving our acceptance. The medicaid stuff, lol congrats, I have it as I'm a care giver and can't get a regular job. And I still have to pay for all my trans stuff, dr's visits and Hrt out of pocket. The rest, sorry not everyone likes socialism.

Oi, sure socialism = evil. Never mind that decidedly socialist places, say western Europe enjoy an equal, arguably better standard of living as the US. We spend more on healthcare than any other nation yet are 37th in the world in healthcare outcomes. Now maybe try to tell me capitalism is always more efficient [/sarcasm].

"Lots in the lgb still hate us" .. really? would you like to back that up with some data. I spend a lot of time every week in queer spaces and have done so on both coasts. 20 years ago I was generally unwelcome in queer / women's spaces while today I am a facilitator in a lesbian discussion group held in the oldest continuously running feminist center in the US.

Is every queer person supportive of trans people? obviously not. How did we get from where we were then to where we are today? As I said to the director of the center I mentioned above "hearts and minds, one at a time".

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 24, 2018, 08:48:25 AM
A quick question if anyone would be kind enough to answer it. (Is it me or is there a fatal flaw in the definition that Trump is trying to push through?) If according to the definition that they are determining sex by either the genitals or by DNA, how then are they going to deal with those who are 46XX/46XY etc with ambiguous genitals? Can any of them explain exactly how they are going to use science to determine WHICH gender they are in those cases?

Nope!  It's not a "fatal flaw," in the sense of being a troubling detail in an otherwise reasoned general theory.  What HHS is working on is heartless, anti-science bunk from beginning to end, from top to bottom.

They intend to dispose of gender issues by simply collapsing gender and sex into the most rigid possible binary: M or F.  The distinction is chromosomal: XY or XX.

Once XY or XX is determined, your gender will be expected to just fall into line behind it.  If you are XX, you will be a woman, like it or not.  If you are XY, you will be a man, like it or not.

Folks with some variant chromosomal makeup don't even fit into their picture.  The Republican "flat-earth science" doesn't even pick up on that.  If trans folks with standard XX or XY chromosomes will just be crammed into the "corresponding" gender, this abominable HHS theory has no plan at all for chromosome-variant people.  They will just be exiled to a biological twilight zone, lacking definition entirely.

The practical result for intersexed people would probably end up with the future looking pretty much like the past.  If a baby is born with ambiguous genitals, the docs just take a look at the new arrival's privates and make a ballpark estimate.  "Looks a little more female than male to me.  What do you think, Mike?"  Cut.  Snip.  Stitch.  A girl is born.  Follow with twenty years of rigid socialization, reinforced, if necessary, with administration of hormonal supplementation.

Under this HHS approach the future is grim for trans folks generally.  It may be grimmest of all for those who are intersexed.

This is disgusting.  And dangerous.  GET THESE REPUBLICAN LOONS OUT OF POWER!

Quote from: itsApril on October 24, 2018, 01:31:40 PMFolks with some variant chromosomal makeup don't even fit into their picture.  The Republican "flat-earth science" doesn't even pick up on that.  If trans folks with standard XX or XY chromosomes will just be crammed into the "corresponding" gender, this abominable HHS theory has no plan at all for chromosome-variant people.  They will just be exiled to a biological twilight zone, lacking definition entirely.

XXY, XYY, or any other chromosomal combination with the presence of at least one Y chromosome would be considered "male" while X, XXX, etc. would be considered "female" (since there would be no Y chromosome).

Quote from: SadieBlake on October 24, 2018, 01:30:44 PM
Oi, sure socialism = evil. Never mind that decidedly socialist places, say western Europe enjoy an equal, arguably better standard of living as the US. We spend more on healthcare than any other nation yet are 37th in the world in healthcare outcomes. Now maybe try to tell me capitalism is always more efficient [/sarcasm].

"Lots in the lgb still hate us" .. really? would you like to back that up with some data. I spend a lot of time every week in queer spaces and have done so on both coasts. 20 years ago I was generally unwelcome in queer / women's spaces while today I am a facilitator in a lesbian discussion group held in the oldest continuously running feminist center in the US.

Is every queer person supportive of trans people? obviously not. How did we get from where we were then to where we are today? As I said to the director of the center I mentioned above "hearts and minds, one at a time".

Yep and how much of Europe was rebuilt on good ole American capitalism? ohhhh almost the whole continent, we learned our lesson after ww1 and didn't want Hitler #2. As for the healthcare, maybe if we didn't have so many frivolous lawsuits and government regulation we might be thriving more.

The second part sure, now keep in mind I didn't say all, in fact my son's gay and he's trying his hardest to spread that petition to all his friends. My sons mother and her girlfriend for starters. My son was dating a ftm, every time his back was turn they were calling him a he/she and spewing hate. Like wise for the two or three transgendered people that live in their neighborhood. Then you got people like Milo what ever his last name is and his followers, plenty of lesbian TERF's do I need to keep going?