• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How the Law (doesn't really), define "gender identity"

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
"Gender Identity" (air quotes deliberate), is clearly a hot topic these days. And it's clear from many debates here on RF that there is a lot of confusion concerning how sex and gender relate to each other as concepts.

The following four (short) videos analyze how Washington state, Oregon, California, and Colorado define "gender identity" in their statutes.

As a summary, they don't really define it at all. They throw words at the problem, but in the end, no definition is forthcoming, at least in these four states. And I would suspect that it's not much better elsewhere.

It strikes me that "gender identity" has a lot of similarities with religion or other constructs of magical thinking. That's not good news in a country that purports to separate church from state :(




 

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Gender identity: A person's internal sense of being male, female, or something else such as agender, binary, gender fluid, gender nonconforming, genderqueer, or nonbinary. Since gender identity is internal, one's gender identity is not necessarily visible to others. All people have a gender identity.​
 

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Gender Identity – (noun) one’s internal deeply-held sense of one’s gender which may be the same or different from one’s sex assigned at birth. One’s gender identity may be male, female, neither or both, e.g., non-binary. Everyone has a gender identity. Gender identity is distinct from sexual orientation.​

 

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.​
 

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
“Gender identity” shall mean a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth. Gender-related identity may be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person's core identity; provided, however, that gender-related identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose.​
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
"Gender Identity" (air quotes deliberate), is clearly a hot topic these days. And it's clear from many debates here on RF that there is a lot of confusion concerning how sex and gender relate to each other as concepts.

The following four (short) videos analyze how Washington state, Oregon, California, and Colorado define "gender identity" in their statutes.

As a summary, they don't really define it at all. They throw words at the problem, but in the end, no definition is forthcoming, at least in these four states. And I would suspect that it's not much better elsewhere.

It strikes me that "gender identity" has a lot of similarities with religion or other constructs of magical thinking. That's not good news in a country that purports to separate church from state :(

Here are the RCW's relevant to the definitions presented in the video:

Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.​

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;
(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;
(c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children;
(d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination;
(e) The right to engage in insurance transactions or transactions with health maintenance organizations without discrimination: PROVIDED, That a practice which is not unlawful under RCW 48.30.300, 48.44.220, or 48.46.370 does not constitute an unfair practice for the purposes of this subparagraph;
(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin, citizenship or immigration status, or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices; and
(g) The right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.
(2) Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in violation of this chapter shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys' fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.).
(3) Except for any unfair practice committed by an employer against an employee or a prospective employee, or any unfair practice in a real estate transaction which is the basis for relief specified in the amendments to RCW 49.60.225 contained in chapter 69, Laws of 1993, any unfair practice prohibited by this chapter which is committed in the course of trade or commerce as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW, is, for the purpose of applying that chapter, a matter affecting the public interest, is not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business, and is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce.
So basically, you can't discriminate by what a person has in their pants, nor can you discriminate based upon whether you judge whether a person's outward appearance matches what you think might be in their pants or not.

Anyone who wants to argue about this is obviously looking for a loophole by which they can discriminate and violate civil rights. (Sorry, you might get reported for violating a person's declared civil rights and have to face the State if you do so.)
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
So basically, you can't discriminate by what a person has in their pants, nor can you discriminate based upon whether you judge whether a person's outward appearance matches what you think might be in their pants or not.

Anyone who wants to argue about this is obviously looking for a loophole by which they can discriminate and violate civil rights. (Sorry, you might get reported for violating a person's declared civil rights and have to face the State if you do so.)
And so bad actors can claim any old "gender identity" they want, and use that to game the system.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
And so bad actors can claim any old "gender identity" they want, and use that to game the system.
Did you even read the declaration of civil rights in regard to freedom from discrimination I posted? The only bad actors gaming the system are the ones who are looking for loopholes by which they can discriminate!
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Did you even read the declaration of civil rights in regard to freedom from discrimination I posted? The only bad actors gaming the system are the ones who are looking for loopholes by which they can discriminate!
And so bad actors can claim any old "gender identity" they want, and use that to game the system.
Alright, let's go through the list and you tell me how a transperson will be "gaming the system" by engaging in the following from the list of Declarations from the RCW's posted above:
1.
a. getting a job?​
b. going to a park, library, or public fair?​
c. renting or buying a place to live?​
d. buying something on credit?​
e. buying insurance?​
f. engaging in commerce free from boycotts or blacklists?​
g. breastfeeding their child?​

So, how is a transperson going to "game the system" in any of the above things simply by claiming "any old gender identity?"
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
“Gender identity” shall mean a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth. Gender-related identity may be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person's core identity; provided, however, that gender-related identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose.​

Thanks for posting these. I read the definitions you posted as being quite similar to the definitions provided in the OP. In other words, often circular and not conveying any useful meaning. Do you agree?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Alright, let's go through the list and you tell me how a transperson will be "gaming the system" by engaging in the following from the list of Declarations from the RCW's posted above:
1.
a. getting a job?​
b. going to a park, library, or public fair?​
c. renting or buying a place to live?​
d. buying something on credit?​
e. buying insurance?​
f. engaging in commerce free from boycotts or blacklists?​
g. breastfeeding their child?​

So, how is a transperson going to "game the system" in any of the above things simply by claiming "any old gender identity?"

How do these useful anti-discrimination laws relate to gaming the system? For example (one of many), in women's sports?
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
How do these useful anti-discrimination laws relate to gaming the system? For example (one of many), in women's sports?
These laws and definitions are from the first video you posted in the OP! You are the one who brought up "gaming the system," so it's up to you to demonstrate this in context to your OP. (As for the second part of your question, sports has its own rules and regulations regarding participants. The State only gets involved in this as far as legislating sports wagering and such.)

<edit to add>

As for definitions, for the purpose of these antidiscrimination declarations, "gender identity" comes under the umbrella term of "sexual orientation," as in LGBTQA+

From the RCW's RCW 49.60.040: Definitions.
(27) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. As used in this definition, "gender expression or identity" means having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.​
 
Last edited:

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
These laws and definitions are from the first video you posted in the OP! You are the one who brought up "gaming the system," so it's up to you to demonstrate this in context to your OP. (As for the second part of your question, sports has its own rules and regulations regarding participants. The State only gets involved in this as far as legislating sports wagering and such.)

Just today (or very recently), title IX was amended to protect people with different "gender identities". So basically ANYONE can claim a "gender identity", which is unfalsifiable, and compete in women's sports. And it's because "gender identity" is basically undefined.

And for the Nth time, here's a link to a list of over 600 women and girls who have lost in sporting events to men claiming a gender identity that allows them to punch down and compete against women:

List of Female Athletes by Sport | She Won

Why? Why is this happening?
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Just today (or very recently), title IX was amended to protect people with different "gender identities". So basically ANYONE can claim a "gender identity", which is unfalsifiable, and compete in women's sports. And it's because "gender identity" is basically undefined.
Anyone can claim a "religion," which is unfalsifiable, yet religious discrimination is recognized as occurring and has legislation regarding it.

And for the Nth time, here's a link to a list of over 600 women and girls who have lost in sporting events to men claiming a gender identity that allows them to punch down and compete against women:

List of Female Athletes by Sport | She Won

Why? Why is this happening?
You would have to take this up with the sports programs, as they are the ones that make the guidelines for their sports participants. The State generally stays out of this except when other laws have been violated.

Here are the new unofficial Title IX guidelines for your perusal:
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Thinking more about women's sports: it should be a matter between a woman and her sports provider, and not for the State to legislate, just as what kind of health care (contraception, abortion, etc.) a woman seeks should be between a woman and her health care provider, and not for the State to legislate.

***grabs popcorn***
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Thinking more about women's sports: it should be a matter between a woman and her sports provider, and not for the State to legislate, just as what kind of health care (contraception, abortion, etc.) a woman seeks should be between a woman and her health care provider, and not for the State to legislate.

***grabs popcorn***
That would depend on who is paying the bills.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm thankful I have the internet to remind me that I should fixate on 1%-2% of the population and their identity.
2% of the population suffering as they
do seems a large enuf number to be
worthy of attention. Even smaller
fractions are being killed in various wars.
If one isn't interested, one need only
avoid such threads.

The real problem here is the OP's treating
gender identity like religion, & invoking
constitutional separation of church & state.
This is specious.
I find no "magical thinking" in my identifying
as male.
 
Top