HHS Reverses Transgender Health Protections

[Silvanus]

My issue is not with the basic care that a trans person has a right to receive. My issue is with the specific details of them not actually being the sex they say they are because science has still not reached the point where we can actually change someone into a man or woman, we can only make them look like a man or woman and apply various drugs and hormones to influence their body, but their internal organs are still not changed. It is these internal organs and these unchangeable aspects that make me feel the previous law is not defined well enough because a doctor may need to treat a trans person as a male because various aspects of their body that are still male even after going through transitioning and someone calling that discrimination.

There's a few things here to unpack which are a bit confused.

Firstly, yes, a doctor may need to treat a trans person's body in a certain way which depends on their birth sex. This is entirely irrelevant to discrimination clauses based on gender identity; the doctors are able to do so regardless, and there was nothing in the previous law to prevent this happening. All the clause did was prevent denial of service based on gender identity. So, in your scenario, a doctor could treat somebody with a womb, regardless of whether that person identified as a woman or a man; however, without the protection in place, the doctor will be able to deny service if the person identifies as a man.

Secondly, "internal organs" do not define a biological man or woman. There are a huge number of biological indicators which together define biological male and female; these are (broadly): body morphology; body chemistry (hormones); genitalia; the presence of testes or ovaries; and chromosomes.

No one of these is on its own a definitive feature. For every individual one of them, counter-examples exist: males can be born without XY chromosomes, and females can be born without XX chromosomes; males can be born without testes, and females can be born without ovaries.

Hormonal treatment and sex reassignment surgeries have allowed us to alter most of these (morphology, chemistry, & genitalia). As I've already pointed out, the few remaining indicators which cannot be altered, such as chromosomes, are not definitive or overriding.

It does not mean that I think this new law is good. It's not. No one should be able to be denied required medical services just because they are trans. But not all services are fundamental and not all services treat men and women the same and trans people will end up being treated for their actual sex and not the one they want others to treat them as, which will inevitably lead to someone decrying something as discriminatory.

What's the issue with treating trans people to the best of the doctor's ability, regardless of their gender identity?

My other issue is with how weak the current definition of trans is outside of gender dysphoria and what keeps anyone from saying they are trans and using it as a way to do illicit things like in the Yaniv case.

The law dealt with the Yaniv case fine, didn't it? Her discrimination claim was not carried, because it was based on specific body parts rather than gender identity.

But wasn't part of it she/he had a history of targeting minority owned shops and suing them? I swear I remember reading there was a racial aspect to the people she/he targeted.

She's certainly not acting in good faith. She appears to be taking the piss, trolling, or whatever. I'm just saying that doesn't necessarily reflect on her gender identity, just on her character.

 

[Worgen]

Very well, would you like me to remove my comment then?

That's up to you.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

If I remember, you're referring to a discussion about right wing youtuber Blair White, who made videos calling out Yaniv. These videos were brought up as a defence of Blair White's character in response to criticism of her politics. The implication was that, whatever those politics, Blair White was ultimately doing a good thing by exposing a horrible paedophile.

Saelune and I argued that, in the context of Blair white's openly transphobic views and habit of singling out and targeting trans people online, it was very obvious that her interest in Yaniv was entirely due to the fact Yaniv was trans, and to vindicate the preexisting belief of her audience that trans people are all dangerous perverts. We also pointed out the clearly political framing, despite the fact that White and Yaniv seemed to share a great deal in common politically.

The irony of accusing Saelune of not being able to handle "negative representatives" of trans people is that Blair White is trans. We were literally calling out an awful, toxic (and, yes, deeply deeply racist) example of a trans person in that thread, and your takeaway from that is that Saelune can't handle any criticism of trans people..

What the fuck.

I honestly have no idea who you are talking about. I was the person that created the Yaniv topic on the old forums and did not get my information from a YouTuber. The discussion was about the wax service incident. Whatever discussion you are talking about is not the one I am referring to unless this Blair White video was brought up in the discussion by someone else.

A word of advice.

If you have not received any kind of scientific or medical education in this field, and if you are not familiar with the rudimentary basics of what the scientific consensus actually is and, crucially, if you don't understand what words like sex mean, you should probably keep quiet rather than saying stuff like this.

Morphological sex, which is the thing we colloquially call sex, is produced entirely by sex hormones. Using sex hormones and surgery to change the physical appearance of the body is already changing someone's sex. It's not perfect by any means, but sex determination is an imperfect process to begin with.

And I AM well learned on the subject. My knowledge though comes from the traditional use of the term because of all the zoology books I read. Sex is the act of procreation and the sex organ is the tool for this act. Hormones and surgery will not give a trans person a functioning sex organ. In the future science may find a way but for now unfortunately, trans people need to make do with what is possible which is their sexual appearance.

The same law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, and yet doctors have no issues refusing to prescribe birth control pills to cis men.

The vast majority of transgender people have experienced discrimination at the hands of healthcare providers, such as being deliberately misgendered or misnamed. One in five have been denied care at some point, including lifesaving care, because a medical professional refuses to treat them. If you want to see how bad it can get, look up how Tyra Hunter died and remember that no individual was even disciplined for that. That's why gender identity was added to the list of protected categories, because there is a demonstrable and urgent need for protections for trans people seeking to access essential public services.

I don't think it's relevant that you don't know what gender identity is, or how the law defines discrimination. That's kind of your problem.

Which is why I think this new law is bad in comparison to the old one and just in general.

No, it's okay. Your shame should remain in plain view for everyone to judge you harshly on for eternity

I think we can all accept it as done, acknowledged, and move on constructively.

 

[Avnger]

And I AM well learned on the subject. My knowledge though comes from the traditional use of the term because of all the zoology books I read.

Reading police procedural novels does not make one an expert on matters of law.

 

[SupahEwok]

Reading police procedural novels does not make one an expert on matters of law.

That's unfair. Textbooks are not equivalent to pulp fiction. And we're all animals.

 

[Agema]

And I AM well learned on the subject. My knowledge though comes from the traditional use of the term because of all the zoology books I read. Sex is the act of procreation and the sex organ is the tool for this act. Hormones and surgery will not give a trans person a functioning sex organ. In the future science may find a way but for now unfortunately, trans people need to make do with what is possible which is their sexual appearance.

It's more complex than that, though. There are conditions such as androgen and oestrogen insensitivity syndomes, XX male syndrome which can cause people to have the overt features of a biological sex, but often not the reproductive capability.

As their sex is defined basically by whether they have a penis or a vagina at birth irrespective of other considerations (such as genetics or whether their sex organse function as intended), it makes sense that if someone adopts the characteristics of another sex by voluntary medical procedure, we may as well reclassify them.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Reading police procedural novels does not make one an expert on matters of law.

Zoology is the study of animals.

It's more complex than that, though. There are conditions such as androgen and oestrogen insensitivity syndomes, XX male syndrome which can cause people to have the overt features of a biological sex, but often not the reproductive capability.

As their sex is defined basically by whether they have a penis or a vagina at birth irrespective of other considerations (such as genetics or whether their sex organse function as intended), it makes sense that if someone adopts the characteristics of another sex by voluntary medical procedure, we may as well reclassify them.

Hhm.

 

[Buyetyen]

And I AM well learned on the subject. My knowledge though comes from the traditional use of the term because of all the zoology books I read. Sex is the act of procreation and the sex organ is the tool for this act. Hormones and surgery will not give a trans person a functioning sex organ. In the future science may find a way but for now unfortunately, trans people need to make do with what is possible which is their sexual appearance.

Zoology is the study of animals, but that does not give you a comprehensive knowledge of human biology. A geneticist or embryologist or similar specialist would tell you that biological sex just reflects the type of gametes that a body produces. If you lack standard issue equipment, but your body still produces the gametes, then it still counts. Of course, if you want to add gender into the mix, then we'll need to bring in specialists in psychology, neurology, endocrinology, embryology, developmental biology, anthropology...

Science is complicated is my point. Having some education in one discipline does not necessarily carry over as expertise in another.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I honestly have no idea who you are talking about. I was the person that created the Yaniv topic on the old forums and did not get my information from a YouTuber. The discussion was about the wax service incident. Whatever discussion you are talking about is not the one I am referring to unless this Blair White video was brought up in the discussion by someone else.

Maybe I missed another thread on the topic.

But that accusation towards Saelune was uncalled for and entirely wrong, and I'm glad you seem to recognize that.

Hormones and surgery will not give a trans person a functioning sex organ.

A functioning sex organ is not required to be a member of a given sex.

People who discover they are infertile due to congenital abnormalities do not cease to be the sex they have always been.

If a man has testicular cancer or an injury which results in the removal of both his testes, he does not cease to be a man.

If a woman has ovarian cancer which results in the removal of most her female reproductive system, she does not cease to be a woman.

If a woman discovers that she has androgen insensitivity syndrome and actually has internal testes, she does not cease to be a woman.

We do not determine human sex by the presence or absence of "functioning sex organs". Sex is assigned at birth based on an examination of external morphology (the shape of the external features of the body) which is why scientists call it morphological sex. However, even if these external features are lost or altered due to illness or accident, we don't typically consider a person to have changed sex. In fact, we will typically try to enable that person to live as a member of their assigned sex and to repair their external morphology to the best of our medical ability.

In the case of that man who lost both his testicles to cancer, we would typically offer him hormone supplements and prosthetics because we recognize that, while functioning testicles did not determine whether or not he was a man, losing his testicles may impact his life and cause distress and dysphoria which needs to be treated. Almost everyone knows, quite intuitively, how sex and gender work because this is how we treat cis people. It is only when trans people come up that suddenly people want to start defining sex in terms of "functioning reproductive organs" and other nonsense which would never hold up if actually applied.

In the future science may find a way but for now unfortunately, trans people need to make do with what is possible which is their sexual appearance.

And that is good enough.

When it comes to sex determination, there is no such thing as a perfect human body, there is only a good enough human body.* A great deal of very different bodies can fall into the category of a good enough human body. Arbitrarily moving the goalposts to exclude trans people from that category is a deliberate choice.

* I should stress at this point that I'm describing how medical sex determination works, not how I think sex or gender actually works. I absolutely do not believe there is any standard a body must reach in order for a person's gender identity to be valid, and I don't think we should be considering bodies at all unless it is directly relevant.

 

[SilentPony]

Don't bring up another user who isn't able to defend herself.

Whatever happened to her? I thought she made the switch over to Forums 2.0, but apparently it was a fake account by someone pretending to be her.

 

[Agema]

Whatever happened to her? I thought she made the switch over to Forums 2.0, but apparently it was a fake account by someone pretending to be her.

I don't get who would bother? Surely people have better things to do with their time.

 

[SilentPony]

I don't get who would bother? Surely people have better things to do with their time.

That's all I know. I mentioned a while back I had seen Saelune in the forums but there account was gone and one of the mods told me it was a fake account.
I just assumed that's why she's not here

 

[Worgen]

Whatever happened to her? I thought she made the switch over to Forums 2.0, but apparently it was a fake account by someone pretending to be her.

She ended up getting banned during a politics fight in another thread. I don't recall which one.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I don't get who would bother? Surely people have better things to do with their time. DOH ho ho ho ho!

There. Now you do your avatar proud.

 

[SupahEwok]

That's all I know. I mentioned a while back I had seen Saelune in the forums but there account was gone and one of the mods told me it was a fake account.
I just assumed that's why she's not here

There was a fake one. It got banned. Then she made a real one. And that got banned.

 

[Agema]

That's all I know. I mentioned a while back I had seen Saelune in the forums but there account was gone and one of the mods told me it was a fake account.
I just assumed that's why she's not here

Ah right: the first account was I think a fake, but then she joined proper, and I think got banned for conduct violations, although don't quote me on that.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Ah right: the first account was I think a fake, but then she joined proper, and I think got banned for conduct violations, although don't quote me on that.

Permanently though? I thought there was just a timer on how long it lasted.

 

[happyninja42]

I don't get who would bother? Surely people have better things to do with their time.

Apparently not, as I recall at one point back on 1.0, somebody made an account name the same as mine, but with the number at the end different. Even grabbed my same avatar icon from the general pool from the site, and proceeded to send me PM's that were offensive and hostile, while also shit-posting in the forums, pretending to be me. Apparently for no reason, though I have my theories on who it might have been and why, but I have no way to prove it.

So yeah, unlike Phil Collins, some people apparently don't have better things to do with their time.

 

[Agema]

Apparently not, as I recall at one point back on 1.0, somebody made an account name the same as mine, but with the number at the end different. Even grabbed my same avatar icon from the general pool from the site, and proceeded to send me PM's that were offensive and hostile, while also shit-posting in the forums, pretending to be me. Apparently for no reason, though I have my theories on who it might have been and why, but I have no way to prove it.

Ah, the good old days, eh? I remember having a slightly heated argument with a user, and I'm about 90% sure they went through and reported every single comment of mine they could find for about two weeks.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Permanently though? I thought there was just a timer on how long it lasted.

There seems to be a lack of information about how that works. Or even what Saelune said that was ban-worthy that the rest of us should avoid saying.