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 →

[–]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

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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

For me it's the legal precedent, because language does shape law and policy. If we accept gender and gender identity as legal categories, we must accept them as material qualities or states of being. No one but trans activists have held forth that either are materially, demonstrably real, but if they're written into law -- presto, they become real. I agree with you that "trans" is a demonstrable state with a hypothetical-but-officially-documented cause (GD), so that's where the legal emphasis should be.

Otherwise, yeah, Wi.