The administration is reportedly planning to restrict the definition of gender as immutable for an individual’s lifetime and that would be based on genitalia at birth, according to a draft memo obtained by The New York Times. Such a definition would essentially be a government declaration that there is no such thing as “transgender.” At least 1.4 million people in the U.S. currently identify as transgender, according to the Times.
The reported change is being spearheaded by the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs receiving government funding.
The NewYork times broke the news on this pending directive and describe it this way: "The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth."
You must realize that this is an all out attack on being transgender. Progressive communities and counties, like the one in which I live, have enacted enlightened civil rights stands to protect transgender rights. This could be a first step in rescinding all of our civil rights protections.
Given the current Supreme Court's conservative majority, we have little hope that these directives would be overturned. This could be the new Justice Kavanaugh's payback to the "calculated and orchestrated political hit by Democrats".
Understand that this will affect all within our community. You could lose your job for being a cross-dresser. Long ago granted gender marker changes could be rescinded. Healthcare providers could refuse treatment, and drop your coverage. You could be harassed in public, refused service, and barred from any public activities/facilities. You could be refused housing, a bank account, access to education and fair treatment under the law. All of this could happen with no recourse.
Individuals are going to feel empowered to discriminate and they will.
The National Center for Transgender Equality, which is one of the organizations planning the Washington rally, warned on Twitter: “Make no mistake, trans people are under direct attack from the Trump Administration.”
Could this be a first step in outlawing all transgender activities? Trump banning transgender people from serving in the military looks to only be the first step in the Trump/Pence challenge to our civil rights protections and our right to exist. Politics just got very personal. I am scared.
After reading the NY Times article, I'm scared too! I am retired military and receive my medical services through the VA. If they start denighing medical treatments due to a GD diagnosis, I will loose not only my VA medical coverage but also my Military medical coverage.ReplyDelete
It wouldn't be bad if they only denigh treatment for transitioning but I fear for some of the girls that are receiving their HRT treatments as well as voice training and psychological support.
It's sad to have to think that, soon, our only option to escape may be to Canada.ReplyDelete
It has always seemed so simple to me that trans rights are just a subset of human rights. Removing specific rights for trans people should not diminish our basic human rights in the process. I could argue that the specific trans rights were unnecessary in the first place, as they were already included in the First Amendment as a freedom of expression. I should have every right to identify and present myself as a woman, just as another should be afforded the right to express himself as having naturally-tan-skinned and with a full head of hair. The fact that I see having fake orange skin and an obvious elaborate comb-over ridiculous, I would never advocate taking away his right to express himself in that way. None of us are afforded the right to be free of things that may offend our sensibilities. Nor do we have the right to demand that people who do things offending our sensibilities be unworthy of every human right that should be afforded to all.
I suppose that the next step by this administration would be to actually list the kinds of people who are offending their sensibilities (I'm sure they already have one at the ready). Simply removing laws that specifically protect trans people from discrimination would not be enough, so they would like to up the ante by specifically targeting those people to whom they are free to discriminate. History has shown this slippery slope to repeatedly lead to terrible consequences.
Climbing out of this could be our greatest escape. Meanwhile, I will continue to be myself, and they can take my heels when they pry them off of my cold, dead feet.
Great comment Connie - I like the part on prying your (our) heels off....Delete
I thought you'd like that, Rhonda. ;-)Delete
If there is any hope to stop this awful plan, it is to vote next month. If you live in a state where Republicans are engaged in voter suppression of some sort, ie voter roll purges, voter ID, exact match, etc., call (866) OUR-VOTE to help ensure your vote counts.ReplyDelete
Actually you are all responding in a Pavlovian manner in response to tired old dog whistle. The huffpost and NYTS are playing you like a fiddle.ReplyDelete
Banning this comment and hiding from the truth will continue to result in your continuing failure. I will post here in the hope that somewhere, somehow an alternative set of ideas might be allowed. Sadly, everywhere free speech has been stiffled. As convenient as this is for those who only want to allow their own point of view to be heard, it is a very dangerous precedent.
Silencing dissent is an anathema to a free people.
The U.S. is a country founded on the principles of a free exchange of ideas.
What you are experiencing now, in the form of the Trump administration is the predictable backlash of a people fed up with being told how to think, how to act and to STFU if we disagree.
You have sown the whirlwind, now you shall reap.
I very strongly agree with you that, " I should have every right to identify and present myself as a woman, just as another should be afforded the right to express himself as having naturally-tan-skinned and with a full head of hair. The fact that I see having fake orange skin and an obvious elaborate comb-over ridiculous, I would never advocate taking away his right to express himself in that way."ReplyDelete
The problem as I see it is that you seem unwilling to allow others to find your "expression" ridiculous and fake, just as that is how you see the President of the United States.
You demand respect, yet you fail to afford that to those you disagree with.
I will always allow and do encourage other opinions. I never assume I have all the answers or even know then best way. This blog will always be open to comments that are well stated.Delete
In the first place, Anonymous, you do not know me, and you don't know that I demand respect as you may define it (not that I would expect you to allow me that respect, anyway). If you want to see me as ridiculous for how I express myself, you have every right to do so. My point is that I have every right to that expression, and your ridiculous opinion of my ridiculous expression is your right, as well. I really don't care what you think of me, and I have never told you to "STFU" for stating what you think.Delete
I only want that all citizens be allowed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No special rights need be given to anyone, as long as we all agree on that premise. I see nothing in how I live my life to be diminishing to anyone else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness - although I suspect it offends your sensibilities. The problem with this alleged plan to redefine gender is that it, at least semantically, would give license for those who would want to take away my rights.
Finally, although I think Donald Trump's fake tan and elaborate comb-over, among other things, to be ridiculous, I never said that the man, himself, was ridiculous and fake. Do you see the difference? Do you see yourself as more than just anonymous? Do you see the irony in your argument?
Rhonda, I applaud you for letting Anonymous have his/her say here. However, I know that you did not do it because, as was said, "Banning this comment and hiding from the truth will continue to result in your continuing failure."ReplyDelete
Should the changes in defining sex be limited to genitalia, with a total disregard for all of the scientific data indicating otherwise, be implemented, it would be nothing short of oppression by our government. Yet, Anonymous equates that to free speech. Who's trying to tell who how to think and act? Such a twist of logic!(or the result of continuing failure).
Rhonda. I am seriously impressed with your courage in allowing me to offer some ideas that are not only not widely subscribed to within your trans community but are generally rejected by the liberal progressive side of the political spectrum, here in the u.s.ReplyDelete
In response to FabCon's assertion that defining one's sex based primarily on one's genitals is "nothing short of oppression by our government", l would argue that is a great example of just exactly the kind of hyperbolic political rhetoric that has been so counterproductive to your efforts to manage some kind of legitimacy in the eyes of mainstream voters in the U.S.
The very real result of such government action is that I, as a trans woman, would be considered illegitimate by my own government. I live my life as I define it, and I'm perfectly aware that there are other people who are not as accepting of me as I would like - whether through their religious beliefs or otherwise. Yet, I live every hour of every day as a woman, and I have had very few negative encounters. My fear of the government attempting to define me as "other" is real. It's not that I should even need any special protections, anyway, as I have said. I am not engaging in hyperbolic political rhetoric, rather, I am defending my own existence and my right to it. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "backlash," but I don't see how anyone could not see it as a predictable answer from "...a people fed up with being told how to think, how to act..." More so, how, what, and who to be.ReplyDelete