Current Events > 45's administration wants to end transgenders

(+) Yeah! (+)

DarkTransient posted...

If you're not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sex in the first place, why's it so important to define people as one or the other in the first place?

This is about saving women's sports.

Pre-ops have been infiltrating women's sports and going home with gold. This is not unfair to women who trained a huge chunk of their lives only to have biological males rob them of their achievements

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/261-politics/77098628

TrumpTrain posted...

DarkTransient posted...

If you're not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sex in the first place, why's it so important to define people as one or the other in the first place?

This is about saving women's sports.

Pre-ops have been infiltrating women's sports and going home with gold. This is not unfair to women who trained a huge chunk of their lives only to have biological males rob them of their achievements

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/261-politics/77098628

Why segregate by gender in the first place?
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Anyone have a response from Caitlyn Jenner or Blair White? Would love to see it.

"I don't exist! MAGA!"
---

how come both sides get upset whenever someone suggests a place to draw the line.

Left gets mad over any gender issue

Right gets mad over any gun issue

How do we know we've crossed the line if it's never defined
---

I mean, your sex is biological. He isn't saying there is anything wrong with transgendered people.
---

Fair next, this will end a lot of pain and confusion
---

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I mean, your sex is biological. He isn't saying there is anything wrong with transgendered people.

They're using this new definition to support their argument regarding title IX anti-discimination, basically this new definition will let them say that trans people aren't a protected class or worthy of civil rights and they'll be able to delete our legal records and revert them as they please and in turn it'll allow us to be discriminated against for employment, housing, medical care (hormones, surgery, basic and emergency medical care are already being denied to us because of gatekeepers who can oppose us), access to most public restrooms, or receiving service in businesses (for that matter, no receiving service from government employees who object to us). It effectively means we'll be open to abuses that will prevent us from existing in public. Or at all, since we could be fired and kicked out of rental contracts simply because a supervisor doesn't want to interact with us. The west coast will mostly be fine UNLESS this change results in a nationwide change that in turn prevents states from individually defining stuff, and we know damn well that Republicans only care about states rights when it's something super racist or sexist but that wouldn't easily fly on a national level. But with all the judge and especially SCOTUS positions Trump has filled, even if him and Pence got launched into the sun today the harm is done for a lifetime. Basically, Republicans are almost certainly going to succeed in reverting trans people back to pre-stonewall levels of protections or legal acknowledgements.

Not that Republicans will care, we could literally be rounded up and jailed and they would cheer. Democrats wouldn't bother putting up a fight.
---

Nepsy posted...

Fair next, this will end a lot of pain and confusion

It's actually extremely harmful to do so and will only benefit the people who these policies don't actually effect.
---

Liberals hate facts.
---

I feel like half this topic is moddable.
---

muchdran posted...

Liberals hate facts.

You can't say "owo facts" if you're ignoring the last half century of progress by the relevant scientific communities.
---

ledbowman posted...

I feel like half this topic is moddable.

It should be
---

This feels to me like they're just trying to make it harder for people to get medical help or legal help in regards to discrimination. Why else purposefully harshly restrict the definition of something that is currently fluid?
---

I mean, it's 2018. Discrimination isn't some kind of thing that happens much to anyone anymore due to social media causing outrages which causes all kinds of problems.

In other words, I'm guessing you're a white cis het male who claims to be moderate?
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

This feels to me like they're just trying to make it harder for people to get medical help or legal help in regards to discrimination. Why else purposefully harshly restrict the definition of something that is currently fluid?

That's literally the purpose. It's making it so we can be discriminated against at all levels, nationwide.
---

I think maybe he only wants to have it so that transgendered people can't get surgery and all that for what is essentially a cosmetic surgery with tax dollars which, imo, sounds fair
---

I don't know why I come into these kinds of topics. Just reading what people think, I could only imagine actually being LGBT and dealing with it in real life.
---

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I think maybe he only wants to have it so that transgendered people can't get surgery and all that for what is essentially a cosmetic surgery with tax dollars which, imo, sounds fair

Your opinion versus medical opinions.

Unless you're a registered therapist, psychologist, or doctor who is one of the MANY who all take part in the process of determining whether or not someone should have gender reassignment surgery, your "opinion" means absolutely fucking nothing.
---

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair
---

Good. I wish my country did this.
---

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair

Should tax dollars be used to help save someone who has lung cancer, but smoked for 5 years?
---

Well, looks like i'm going to Canada as soon as it becomes a possibility... I originally wanted him to move to America with me, but considering the fact that I am not welcome here anymore, I guess i'm going to be moving in with him (my boyfriend) instead.
---

TrumpTrain posted...

DarkTransient posted...

If you're not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sex in the first place, why's it so important to define people as one or the other in the first place?

This is about saving women's sports.

Pre-ops have been infiltrating women's sports and going home with gold. This is not unfair to women who trained a huge chunk of their lives only to have biological males rob them of their achievements

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/261-politics/77098628

Oh yeah, youre a womens sports fan huh?

Guys, the 45 and Kavanaugh supporter is worried about the women now! Lol

In the fetal stage we have the potential to be either gender (I agree there is a spectrum but the hard line is male/female and we have both before birth.)
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair

Should tax dollars be used to help save someone who has lung cancer, but smoked for 5 years?

No. I mean, when it comes to public funding, it Should be a case by case basis
---

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair

By that logic

Giving people wheelchairs isn't necessary because it isn't life or death for most people who need one, it's only the difference between them being able to exist in public and get around versus being trapped at home, mostly in bed, for the rest of their lives and as they wouldn't be able to move or get fresh air or exercise that wouldn't be nearly as long a life as it could be.

Which is to say, that it perfectly illustrates why quality of life enhancing medical care should be covered. Hell, there's some third world countries with universal healthcare, the US only has one excuse for why they haven't done so and that's capitalism.
---

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair

Should tax dollars be used to help save someone who has lung cancer, but smoked for 5 years?

No. I mean, when it comes to public funding, it Should be a case by case basis

What if the person in question never smoked, but lived in a household where they were exposed to second degree smoke their entire child life?
---

gunplagirl posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair

By that logic

Giving people wheelchairs isn't necessary because it isn't life or death for most people who need one, it's only the difference between them being able to exist in public and get around versus being trapped at home, mostly in bed, for the rest of their lives and as they wouldn't be able to move or get fresh air or exercise that wouldn't be nearly as long a life as it could be.

Which is to say, that it perfectly illustrates why quality of life enhancing medical care should be covered. Hell, there's some third world countries with universal healthcare, the US only has one excuse for why they haven't done so and that's capitalism.

Well put
---

gunplagirl posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair

By that logic

Giving people wheelchairs isn't necessary because it isn't life or death for most people who need one, it's only the difference between them being able to exist in public and get around versus being trapped at home, mostly in bed, for the rest of their lives and as they wouldn't be able to move or get fresh air or exercise that wouldn't be nearly as long a life as it could be.

Which is to say, that it perfectly illustrates why quality of life enhancing medical care should be covered. Hell, there's some third world countries with universal healthcare, the US only has one excuse for why they haven't done so and that's capitalism.

People needing to get around IS a life or death situation though. If you can't get to the grocery store, you can't eat, you die. That's not the same thing
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair

Should tax dollars be used to help save someone who has lung cancer, but smoked for 5 years?

No. I mean, when it comes to public funding, it Should be a case by case basis

What if the person in question never smoked, but lived in a household where they were exposed to second degree smoke their entire child life?

Then yes. Again, case by case
---

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

gunplagirl posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair

By that logic

Giving people wheelchairs isn't necessary because it isn't life or death for most people who need one, it's only the difference between them being able to exist in public and get around versus being trapped at home, mostly in bed, for the rest of their lives and as they wouldn't be able to move or get fresh air or exercise that wouldn't be nearly as long a life as it could be.

Which is to say, that it perfectly illustrates why quality of life enhancing medical care should be covered. Hell, there's some third world countries with universal healthcare, the US only has one excuse for why they haven't done so and that's capitalism.

People needing to get around IS a life or death situation though. If you can't get to the grocery store, you can't eat, you die. That's not the same thing

They can simply have it delivered through a program or order it through one of many apps.

(I'm highlighting the utter bull shit of your own arguments and the cognitive dissonance you'll go through to justify discrimination against trans people, while at the same time saying you know what we need more than we actually need in the same breath that you'll utter the lie that you have nothing against us. If you hadnothing against us, you wouldn't actually object because you'd actually realize we know what medical care we need more than you do)
---

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/community/SageHarpuiaHX/boards

Womp womp
---

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair

Should tax dollars be used to help save someone who has lung cancer, but smoked for 5 years?

No. I mean, when it comes to public funding, it Should be a case by case basis

What if the person in question never smoked, but lived in a household where they were exposed to second degree smoke their entire child life?

Then yes. Again, case by case

So someone, through no fault of their own who has a medical condition that the medical community agrees upon is an issue, deserves to have some help?

Most experts in the medical field believe that being transgender is not the fault of anyone, and it is something that is an issue they are born with. Part of the treatment can be (and must be agreed upon by doctors) gender reassignment. Results from those who have had reassignment show an increase in their quality of life, the chemical makeup of their brains, and increased productivity for the individual involved, now feeling more capable of being a productive member of society.

Given this information, do you still think that these people deserve absolutely no help?
---

gunplagirl posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

gunplagirl posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair

By that logic

Giving people wheelchairs isn't necessary because it isn't life or death for most people who need one, it's only the difference between them being able to exist in public and get around versus being trapped at home, mostly in bed, for the rest of their lives and as they wouldn't be able to move or get fresh air or exercise that wouldn't be nearly as long a life as it could be.

Which is to say, that it perfectly illustrates why quality of life enhancing medical care should be covered. Hell, there's some third world countries with universal healthcare, the US only has one excuse for why they haven't done so and that's capitalism.

People needing to get around IS a life or death situation though. If you can't get to the grocery store, you can't eat, you die. That's not the same thing

They can simply have it delivered through a program or order it through one of many apps.

(I'm highlighting the utter bull shit of your own arguments and the cognitive dissonance you'll go through to justify discrimination against trans people, while at the same time saying you know what we need more than we actually need in the same breath that you'll utter the lie that you have nothing against us. If you hadnothing against us, you wouldn't actually object because you'd actually realize we know what medical care we need more than you do)

I'm not discriminating on anybody. I don't want anything that isn't life threatening to use tax dollars on in any situation. Your argument boils down to people who can't afford a wheelchair to use an expensive food delivery service. Great logic! They deserve the wheel chair because they die without it. Transgendered people don't die. This is a false equivalency

But your bias is clouding your judgement and I can see I won't get anywhere with you so have a good night
---

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

gunplagirl posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

gunplagirl posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair

By that logic

Giving people wheelchairs isn't necessary because it isn't life or death for most people who need one, it's only the difference between them being able to exist in public and get around versus being trapped at home, mostly in bed, for the rest of their lives and as they wouldn't be able to move or get fresh air or exercise that wouldn't be nearly as long a life as it could be.

Which is to say, that it perfectly illustrates why quality of life enhancing medical care should be covered. Hell, there's some third world countries with universal healthcare, the US only has one excuse for why they haven't done so and that's capitalism.

People needing to get around IS a life or death situation though. If you can't get to the grocery store, you can't eat, you die. That's not the same thing

They can simply have it delivered through a program or order it through one of many apps.

(I'm highlighting the utter bull shit of your own arguments and the cognitive dissonance you'll go through to justify discrimination against trans people, while at the same time saying you know what we need more than we actually need in the same breath that you'll utter the lie that you have nothing against us. If you hadnothing against us, you wouldn't actually object because you'd actually realize we know what medical care we need more than you do)

I'm not discriminating on anybody. I don't want anything that isn't life threatening to use tax dollars on in any situation. Your argument boils down to people who can't afford a wheelchair to use an expensive food delivery service. Great logic! They deserve the wheel chair because they die without it. Transgendered people don't die. This is a false equivalency

But your bias is clouding your judgement and I can see I won't get anywhere with you so have a good night

Ah yes, mental anguish definitely isn't detrimental to quality of life. Oh wait.
---

Why the fuck am I wasting time on a 21 karma alt with over 10 times as many posts?
---

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

gunplagirl posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

gunplagirl posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair

By that logic

Giving people wheelchairs isn't necessary because it isn't life or death for most people who need one, it's only the difference between them being able to exist in public and get around versus being trapped at home, mostly in bed, for the rest of their lives and as they wouldn't be able to move or get fresh air or exercise that wouldn't be nearly as long a life as it could be.

Which is to say, that it perfectly illustrates why quality of life enhancing medical care should be covered. Hell, there's some third world countries with universal healthcare, the US only has one excuse for why they haven't done so and that's capitalism.

People needing to get around IS a life or death situation though. If you can't get to the grocery store, you can't eat, you die. That's not the same thing

They can simply have it delivered through a program or order it through one of many apps.

(I'm highlighting the utter bull shit of your own arguments and the cognitive dissonance you'll go through to justify discrimination against trans people, while at the same time saying you know what we need more than we actually need in the same breath that you'll utter the lie that you have nothing against us. If you hadnothing against us, you wouldn't actually object because you'd actually realize we know what medical care we need more than you do)

I'm not discriminating on anybody. I don't want anything that isn't life threatening to use tax dollars on in any situation. Your argument boils down to people who can't afford a wheelchair to use an expensive food delivery service. Great logic! They deserve the wheel chair because they die without it. Transgendered people don't die. This is a false equivalency

But your bias is clouding your judgement and I can see I won't get anywhere with you so have a good night

Y'all gonna be a shitposter on your multiple dozenth alt and say that? Hahahahaha
---

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

Transgendered people don't die

Wow, like never? This is some considerable new lore.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Why the fuck am I wasting time on a 21 karma alt with over 10 times as many posts?

you don't know Josh? Jealous
---

They should only be allowed to compete in sports of the gender they were born as.
---

WhinyZach posted...

gunplagirl posted...

__B0xxY2J0sHBK_ posted...

I have no problem with people using their own money to get the surgery. I have no problem with transgendered people. But if it isn't life threatening, tax dollars probably shouldn't cover it. That seems completely fair

By that logic

Giving people wheelchairs isn't necessary because it isn't life or death for most people who need one, it's only the difference between them being able to exist in public and get around versus being trapped at home, mostly in bed, for the rest of their lives and as they wouldn't be able to move or get fresh air or exercise that wouldn't be nearly as long a life as it could be.

Which is to say, that it perfectly illustrates why quality of life enhancing medical care should be covered. Hell, there's some third world countries with universal healthcare, the US only has one excuse for why they haven't done so and that's capitalism.

holy shit, this is crazy.

Needing a wheelchair is not the same as needing your genitals rearranged.

The only type of care trans community needs that should be funded is their higher rate of suicide. Which doesn't change after gender reassignment surgery. The cosmetic surgery should not be covered.

The rates dramatically lower after receiving surgery. Maybe don't get your statistics from Fox news who have a penchant for completely misreading charts, graphs, etc.

Tell me, are you trans, do you know what medical care we need?
---

WhinyZach posted...

The only type of care trans community needs that should be funded is their higher rate of suicide. Which doesn't change after gender reassignment surgery. The cosmetic surgery should not be covered.

It's almost as if the 'higher rate of suicide' might be heavily connected to how people in the real world treat them
---

Learning posted...

WhinyZach posted...

The only type of care trans community needs that should be funded is their higher rate of suicide. Which doesn't change after gender reassignment surgery. The cosmetic surgery should not be covered.

It's almost as if the 'higher rate of suicide' might be heavily connected to how people in the real world treat them

For instance, having the party that is in power actively trying to deny us civil rights, and stacking the courts for decades to ensure that we'll be discriminated against and unable to legally challenge that in most of our lifetimes.
---

WhinyZach posted...

Learning posted...

WhinyZach posted...

The only type of care trans community needs that should be funded is their higher rate of suicide. Which doesn't change after gender reassignment surgery. The cosmetic surgery should not be covered.

It's almost as if the 'higher rate of suicide' might be heavily connected to how people in the real world treat them

Ya, or a mental illness.

If you're seriously going to pretend that treating a minority group like they're subhuman, along with many of their families disowning them for being trans has nothing to do with their suicide rates, then arguing with you is a complete waste of time. Absolutely zero sense of cause and effect
---

WhinyZach posted...

Learning posted...

WhinyZach posted...

The only type of care trans community needs that should be funded is their higher rate of suicide. Which doesn't change after gender reassignment surgery. The cosmetic surgery should not be covered.

It's almost as if the 'higher rate of suicide' might be heavily connected to how people in the real world treat them

Ya, or a mental illness.

Good old GameFAQs. Where the science is made up, and the trans people don't matter.
---

remember when posting blatantly false information on Gamefaqs was against the rules? Serious fucking question, what's it going to take to get back to that?

one would think, in what has to be the thousandth trans-related topic on CE over the years, that we'd stop seeing the 101 level bullshit.

but I guess that requires the staff to actually care enough to do something about it.
---