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

[icehorse]

Certainly, I would have missed this fact if not for the last 200 threads about the same subject. I'm thankful I have the internet to remind me that I should fixate on 1%-2% of the population and their identity.

It's not the 1%or 2%, it's the 50%+ of women and girls losing safety and their rights that make this topic important.

 

[icehorse]

Anyone can claim a "religion," which is unfalsifiable, yet religious discrimination is recognized as occurring and has legislation regarding it.

As time goes on I see more and more that gender ideology is a new religion. I think if it was seen as a religion a lot of confusion would be cleared up, and a lot of bad outcomes would be reduced.

For example, some gender ideologists would call me a "cis-man". I consider that to be a religious title, and I reject it.

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:
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-unofficial-final-rule-2024.pdf

Thanks for the link. I think your link demonstrates that in fact "the state" has a heavy hand in sports competitions - the document you provided is over 1,500 pages long!

Next, the document uses the phrase "gender identity" countless times. The document is riddled with the phrase. "Gender identity" is having a huge impact on title IX. The term "gender" is never defined, and on page 1234 we can find the definition of gender identity:

"The Department understands gender identity to describe an individual's sense of their gender, which may or may not be different from their sex assigned at birth."

Using the same sort of analysis done in the videos in the OP, we know we can remove everything starting with "which may or may not" since all that follows is dependent on that phrase. (And as a bit of a tangent, "sex assigned at birth" is an ideological phrase, not a scientific one.)

So what remains is the circular definition:

"The Department understands gender identity to describe an individual's sense of their gender."

To summarize, the document you provided reinforces the OP: "Gender Identity" is basically an undefined term in the law.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

I was talking more about depicting the 1%-2% as if their identity were a major issue facing society when chances are one won't even notice if they encounter one of them.

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.

Yeah, dismissal of the current medical understanding of gender just because it doesn't match certain ideologies seems to me a clear example of politicizing a medical issue.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's not the 1%or 2%, it's the 50%+ of women and girls losing safety and their rights that make this topic important.

Nothing you have posted establishes that "50%+" figure, nor does it establish that trans women pose an increased risk to cis women's safety. The above also seems to overlook the fact that many cis women are highly supportive of trans women's rights and don't regard trans women as a threat to their safety or rights (for example).

Given my previous experiences of trying to have a productive discussion about this topic with you, though, I don't see any point in engaging your posts beyond this one.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was talking more about depicting the 1%-2% as if their identity were a major issue facing society when chances are one won't even notice if they encounter one of them.

Just today, I discussed it with a friend whose daughter
was recently her son. I find that this very much matters
to society....even if those with the condition are only 1%
or 2% of the populace.
But upon further consideration, perhaps you referred to
the OP's many claims that trans folk pose a danger to
women. I agree that this isn't a major societal problem.

Yeah, dismissal of the current medical understanding of gender just because it doesn't match certain ideologies seems to me a clear example of politicizing a medical issue.

It reeks of hostility towards trans folk.

 

[icehorse]

Nothing you have posted establishes that "50%+" figure, nor does it establish that trans women pose an increased risk to cis women's safety. The above also seems to overlook the fact that many cis women are highly supportive of trans women's rights and don't regard trans women as a threat to their safety or rights (for example).

Given my previous experiences of trying to have a productive discussion about this topic with you, though, I don't see any point in engaging your posts beyond this one.

That seems like a cop out to me. I notice for example, that you've remained silent concerning the release of the WPATH files and the Cass report. Both of those important events completely support my earlier concerns about gender affirming care. When we debated those topics several months ago you felt it appropriate to repeatedly excoriate me on those topics.

So it's ironic that you're now declaring that we cannot have productive discussion. For months I tried to have productive conversations with you, and you made it impossible. Now that I'm proven right your tactic is this? wow!

 

[crossfire]

As time goes on I see more and more that gender ideology is a new religion. I think if it was seen as a religion a lot of confusion would be cleared up, and a lot of bad outcomes would be reduced.

For example, some gender ideologists would call me a "cis-man". I consider that to be a religious title, and I reject it.



Thanks for the link. I think your link demonstrates that in fact "the state" has a heavy hand in sports competitions - the document you provided is over 1,500 pages long!

I couldn't find anything about sports in it. Maybe you can.

Next, the document uses the phrase "gender identity" countless times. The document is riddled with the phrase. "Gender identity" is having a huge impact on title IX. The term "gender" is never defined, and on page 1234 we can find the definition of gender identity:

"The Department understands gender identity to describe an individual's sense of their gender, which may or may not be different from their sex assigned at birth."

Using the same sort of analysis done in the videos in the OP, we know we can remove everything starting with "which may or may not" since all that follows is dependent on that phrase. (And as a bit of a tangent, "sex assigned at birth" is an ideological phrase, not a scientific one.)

So what remains is the circular definition:

"The Department understands gender identity to describe an individual's sense of their gender."

To summarize, the document you provided reinforces the OP: "Gender Identity" is basically an undefined term in the law.

The analysis of the video is flawed, in that identity is a completely subjective thing which resides only in the mind. Do you want the government to legislate your personal image of yourself?

 

[icehorse]

I couldn't find anything about sports in it. Maybe you can.

?? Are we talking about the 1500+ page Title IX document you linked to?

If so, sports is a major part of Title IX, and if you do a search on the word "sports" in your document you'll find many occurrences.

The analysis of the video is flawed, in that identity is a completely subjective thing which resides only in the mind. Do you want the government to legislate your personal image of yourself?

Those videos were analyzing state laws. I agree that identity is subjective. I do not want the government to legislate my personal image, but they are! That's the point of the thread.

Government has bought into gender ideology and is basing laws on it.

 

[crossfire]

?? Are we talking about the 1500+ page Title IX document you linked to?

If so, sports is a major part of Title IX, and if you do a search on the word "sports" in your document you'll find many occurrences.

7 instances of "sports." The first couple were in regard to sexual harassment in sports, the next couple were in regard to the ability of spectators to sports to file a title IX grievience instead of only the people being harassed, and there were extensive notes of the discussion regarding gender identity and sports.

What Title IX did conclude is this: basically sending it back to the sports departments for them to work out:

​

Consistent with the longstanding athletics regulations, § 106.31(a)(2) does not apply to​

permissible sex separation of athletic teams. The Department of Education issued a notice of​

proposed rulemaking that would, if finalized, provide a standard for criteria for a student’s​

eligibility to participate on sex-separate athletic teams in the future. See Notice of Proposed​

Rulemaking on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities​

Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female​

Athletic Teams, 88 FR 22860 (Apr. 13, 2023) (Athletics NPRM). The Athletics NPRM said a​

categorical ban on transgender students playing sports consistent with their gender identity​

would not satisfy the proposed regulation, but more targeted criteria, substantially related to​

sport, level of competition, and grade or education level, could be permissible. The Department​

is continuing to evaluate comments on that proposed regulation, and will issue its final rule on​

this standard for criteria for a student’s eligibility to participate on sex-separate athletic teams in​

the future. Until that rule is finalized and issued, the current regulations on athletics continue to​

apply.​

Those videos were analyzing state laws. I agree that identity is subjective. I do not want the government to legislate my personal image, but they are! That's the point of the thread.

Government has bought into gender ideology and is basing laws on it.

These laws are not solely based on gender identity as you are claiming, rather they are based on declared rights against being discriminated against, enjoyed by the full spectrum of people. All kinds of people have the right not to be discriminated against in regards to obtaining housing, getting a job, buying on credit, etc. as mentioned in the RCW's upthread. These laws are based on discrimination, all kinds of discrimination, of which gender identity is only a subset of a subset type of what is covered by the umbrella of the protection from discrimination.

 

[icehorse]

These laws are not solely based on gender identity as you are claiming

I never claimed that.

What I'm saying is that many laws include references to "gender identity" - whatever that is.

Of course I have no problem with anti-discrimination laws. But if you cannot even define what "gender identity" is, which all of these laws seem to fail at, why is "gender identity" even included?

 

[crossfire]

I never claimed that.

What exactly did you mean by this then? What do you mean by "is basing laws on it?"

<...>
Government has bought into gender ideology and is basing laws on it.

What I'm saying is that many laws include references to "gender identity" - whatever that is.

Of course I have no problem with anti-discrimination laws. But if you cannot even define what "gender identity" is, which all of these laws seem to fail at, why is "gender identity" even included?

It's included so people can't game the system and discrimate against transgender and non-binary people, obviously. The gender identity definition of the subset of sexual orientation would also include such subsets as butch and femme.

 

[McBell]

But if you cannot even define what "gender identity" is, which all of these laws seem to fail at, why is "gender identity" even included?

Except the problem isn't that "gender identity" is not defined.
The problem is you dislike the definitions.

 

[icehorse]

What exactly did you mean by this then? What do you mean by "is basing laws on it?"

Yup, in retrospect "basing" was a poor word choice, good catch.

How about "altering and amending laws..." ?

It's included so people can't game the system and discrimate against transgender and non-binary people, obviously. The gender identity definition of the subset of sexual orientation would also include such subsets as butch and femme.

That's a good goal. But the implementation details matter and these implementations are being taken advantage of (sometimes violently), by misogynists.

Again, the OP is focused on the term "gender identity" because it does so much heavy lifting in so many situations, we ought to have a solid definition. The best definitions I've seen are usually circular, usually unfalsifiable, and usually overly subjective. Those definitional problems make the phrase just too, too susceptible to abuse and misuse. And abuse and misuse are happening every day.

 

[icehorse]

Except the problem isn't that "gender identity" is not defined.
The problem is you dislike the definitions.

The problem isn't that I dislike the definitions. The problem is that these definitions are of extremely poor quality and subject to abuse and misuse in the context of the law. As we've seen over and over again, if we're paying attention.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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***

Largely makes sense to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That would depend on who is paying the bills.

How so?

 

[McBell]

The problem isn't that I dislike the definitions. The problem is that these definitions are of extremely poor quality and subject to abuse and misuse in the context of the law. As we've seen over and over again, if we're paying attention.

Please provide an example of this seen over and over again phenomenon you are talking about.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How so?

Just a comment that if you are bankrolling something, you have a say in it.

 

[Watchmen]

"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

California most definitely defines “gender identity.” Here you go: Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 2, § 11030 - Definitions

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Just a comment that if you are bankrolling something, you have a say in it.

I'm not sure that true in the case of detailed decisions within a sports body. I wouldn't want the government interfering in basketball apart from ensuring adherence to laws and governance frameworks. The sport is better placed to make decisions about transgender athletes and how such things are to be managed within an individual sport, whilst adhering to overall sports governance laws and frameworks.

Agree?