QT: What rights don’t trans people have?

submitted by wokuspokus from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 5 insightful - 8 fun5 insightful - 7 fun6 insightful - 8 fun -  (19 children)

You can discriminate same way against (natal) women.

Sex is protected in both housing and medical administration federally. As is age, disability, race, legitimacy, and many other categories. Gender identity is not. Only in employment do we have federal protection due to the Harris funeral home case.

That is a lie.

It absolutely is not. There was a study done that indicated an approximate loss of 10 percent performance in endurance events, putting hormone controlled trans women on par with cis women. As well as documented muscle loss through transition and a known correlation of presence of testosterone and maintenance of muscle mass. It’s absolutely baseless to claim we can compete with men. You could quibble about whether we can compete with natal women but it’s absolutely baseless to claim we are even comparable to men athletically.

[–]MarkTwainiac 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There was a study done that indicated an approximate loss of 10 percent performance in endurance events, putting hormone controlled trans women on par with cis women.

That "study" was a 2015 paper about 8 trans-identified male long distance runners who self-reported that their times in distance events had gotten slower after "transition." One of the athletes included in the "study" was the author. The intervals between the "before transition" & "after transition" times these runners self reported varied greatly - in one case it was 29 years.

That "study" has been widely debunked, & recently the author of it said its findings were "flimsy" & have not been borne out by research since.

Males on T suppression for 12 months lose 5% of their muscle mass & strength advantage. Since the male advantage in sports ranges from 12% to close to 50%, there's no way this puts T-suppressed post pubertal males on a level playing field with female athletes.

The author of that "study" has also acknowledged publicly that even after 36 months of T suppression, males who identify as trans retain most of the male advantages they have over females in sports.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

Feel free to cite any of those numbers. And, yet again, I’m not arguing we should compete with natal women I am saying we can’t compete with men.

[–]divingrightintowork 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

And What? That’s it.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Sex is protected in both housing and medical administration federally. As is age, disability, race, legitimacy, and many other categories. Gender identity is not

Genuine question- how do you protect people over something that we can’t even define or understand?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (8 children)

It’s quite simple. Literally just saying you can’t discriminate based on gender identity covers anything from self id to medical diagnosis. You could also phrase it at transgender status simply gender. It would all work.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I don’t agree with self ID but how do you medically diagnose gender identity?

I agree there should be protections in place for being trans (literally just for being trans- don’t call it gender or identity, just literally trans) the way there is for sex and race etc

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (6 children)

Gender dysphoria is diagnosable. And for nondiscrimination I would certainly rather overprotect than underprotect.

Defining being trans has the same definition issues as gender identity. The term is immaterial ultimately.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I know gender dysphoria is diagnosable. Gender identity is not and you said something about protections on the basis of gender identity and mentioned diagnosing it.

The term isn’t immaterial. A dysphoric individual isn’t necessarily trans, neither is someone who thinks they have a “gender identity”. Making the protection specifically about trans people, not gender identity, actually protects trans people. Making the protection about gender identity allows the Wii Spa incident and similar. Making the protections about dysphoria does nothing for anyone, we can’t see someone’s dysphoric (or their gender identity for that matter), we can see that they are trans most of the time, and that’s when (and why) trans people are discriminated against, if that makes sense.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

I see where you are going but ultimately I’m not bothered for the language. I just want to be legally protected.

A dysphoric individual isn’t necessarily trans,

I actually wouldn’t agree.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

  1. It’s not just about protecting Masks, tho. It’s about protecting trans people as a whole, right? While still protecting females? You’re not protected if the protection is “anyone who says ‘gender identity’ is protected”. That’s how you increase risk of harm for yourself and for women. The language matters. Laws in place for females make (well…made…) it clear they referred to female people, laws in place for black people (even the Racist ones) made it clear what community they were referring to.

it can’t be vague if it’s meant to protect- gender identity is vague by (lack of) definition. It has to be specific and clear. And since it’s your safety in question, not mine, it’s really interesting that you don’t seem to care about the difference the wording makes.

*2. You not agreeing doesn’t make it less true that there are dysphoric individuals even on this sub who aren’t trans

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

If it’s a question of discrimination protections in health care etc, I’m not against overprotecting.

Like this isn’t about spaces or whatever. I’m talking baseline nondiscrimination.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That doesn’t over protect, it leaves everyone -not just trans people- unprotected

I agree there needs to be baseline non-discrimination- but by giving anyone an excuse to just say “identity”, youre actually denying that nondiscrimination, self ID and gender identity just make abuse of the protection possible, while making it harder to protect people that need to be protected. Gender identity can only be claimed, it can’t be seen or proven so how can you even prove someone was discriminated against based on it? You can’t, unless they’re trans… which is why being trans should be what’s protected.

I mean I guess it doesn’t affect me so idk why I can’t drop this

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sex is protected in both housing and medical administration federally.

Isn't you can fire woman for being pregnant in conservative states? Or it is just happening with other excuses there and then ignored by court? Also, in California state since 2016 "sex" is including "gender identity", so it should be protected there.

putting hormone controlled trans women on par with cis women

10% muscle loss is not enough to be "on par with cis women". Males and females have completely different anatomy, and males have up to 30-50% more muscles with same height and weight. So 10% loss would not be really enough. Even 50% would not be enough, because all other differences would still stay.

And again, cases I mentioned - those transwomen after years on cross-sex hormones would still be able to compete against males in same category and still would be competetive and better than 60-85% of "cis" men there. Cece even improved best time, so clearly not "have disadvantage". It is obvious that transwomen are losing competitiveness, but not to a very big degree, so maybe not taking first places, but possible to be near the top. So far only Jenner from top performing athletes transitioned, in other cases it is already low to medium performing male athletes who are transitioning. Opposite is not happening, as transmen even after years on testosterone are not able to even qualify (as often qualification into male competition is above all time female records).

Plus not in professional sport (or in countries like Canada even in competitive sport) - you do not even need to be on cross-sex hormones, you may be just "Non-binary woman male" and compete against "cis" women. So there it can be just manly looking man, buffed with 25 nmol/l testosterone levels and still compete against "cis" women.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Isn't you can fire woman for being pregnant in conservative states?

No. That’s illegal. It happens under pretense but it isn’t legal.

Also, in California state since 2016 "sex" is including "gender identity", so it should be protected there.

I’m speaking federally. The majority of states do not have gender identity protections.

10% muscle loss is not enough to be "on par with cis women". Males and females have completely different anatomy, and males have up to 30-50% more muscles with same height and weight. So 10% loss would not be really enough. Even 50% would not be enough, because all other differences would still stay.

I never claimed we were equal in sport to natal women. In fact I said specifically it was arguable. I personally am against trans women competing against cis women. My point is we can’t compare against men.

Opposite is not happening, as transmen even after years on testosterone are not able to even qualify (as often qualification into male competition is above all time female records).

This isn’t accurate. There have been exactly 1 trans man and 1 trans woman to qualify for Olympic trials. Again I’m not for trans women competing against natal women but factually this is the case.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see, thanks for clarifying.

There have been exactly 1 trans man

It was "athletic walk", where male and female differences are one of smallest (still between 5% to 10%, but not 10-12% to 17% like in running or cycling). Plus Mosier was not able to finish qualification beacuse of female-specific trauma that athletic walkers are getting in female category but rarely in male category (similar reason why female soldiers are rarely doing standing guarding, as it increases risks of leg injury). It is unknown if Mosier will be able to recover, and because of trauma Mosier was not able to qualify (so we don't know if Mosier was able to qualify). I had same trauma, but from running, and I was not able to recover to compete again.

In Mosier main disciplines (duathlone and triathlone) - was not able to qualify.

[–]divingrightintowork 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If a trans person is rejected because they're trans they fall under sex protection under pricewaterhousecoopers ann hopkins & and the more recent one I forget the name of. Please feel free to explain to me how they don't.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

For employment they do but that hasn’t been expanded to the other civil rights act provisions.