This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

ACLU's Chase Strangio kissing the Blarney Stone yet again, "Just a reminder that the term "biological sex" appeared nowhere in US law before North Carolina passed HB2. It is a legal structure that emerged for the sole purpose of excluding trans people from public life."

submitted by BEB from twitter.com

all 12 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]NutterButterFlutterStill waving into the void[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Removing for rule 2. This would be better suited for s/GenderCritical, s/GenderCriticalGuys, or s/ThereAreTwoGenders.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And everyone knows that’s because it didn’t need to be defined. Babies and dogs can tell biological sex and don’t need it explained to them. And archaeologists and farmers have done just fine too.

I appreciate when she’s this unhinged because it makes it obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together and who isn’t 12 or younger. If there’s no such thing as biological sex, what are you transitioning from Chase and why do you need special treatment and protection? Biological sex is what stops the TERFs from being able to identify as trans women and being the most marginalized trans women because our female bodies don’t align with our trans women identities.

[–]MyLongestJourney 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"There is no such thing as biological sex, just an array of biological traits, none of which are singularly definitive. Biological diversity is an inherent human trait" twits Alicyn Simpson,self described "dreamer, thinker, singer, writer" and absolutely clueless regarding biology,getting the public ridicule she deserves.

[–]BEB[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"If biological sex isn't a legitimate distinction on which to divide sports and private spaces, why is an identity BASED on biological sex a legitimate one?"

Stole this from this often funny, often informative, Twitter user (who I also sometimes disagree with):

https://twitter.com/catsiesXX

[–]julesburm1891 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The truth though. If sex isn’t real, why are trans people altering their bodies to look like the opposite sex? If sexual orientation is just a malleable preference why aren’t trans people’s sexual orientations inclusive?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Pretty much every country has biological sex written into their laws. It's just usually called sex because everyone but the biggest fucking idiots on the planet understands that sex is biological.

[–]MatthewofHouseGraySuper straight ally :) 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"There is no such thing as biological sex, just an array of biological traits."

I believe "biological traits" would be aspects like eye and skin color, not organs like ovaries and testicles. Each sex is capable of having the same eye and skin color, but organs on the orher hand are very specific to each sex.

[–]julesburm1891 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 19th amendment, and a whole slew of other American laws very explicitly state that rights and protections extend to citizens regardless of sex.

[–]BEB[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act to change the legal definition of "sex" to include "gender identity."

The reason feminists and some gay men are worried is that the way the Equality Act is written "gender identity" trumps (biological) sex under the law. As there is no way to define "gender identity" this will lead to chaos and the erasure of women and gay men as distinct and coherent legal categories.

The Equality Act will also make confusing, if not ineffectual, the laws that protect women and gay men on the basis of sex.

[–]julesburm1891 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah. I get that. The point I was trying to make is that Strangio is flat out lying by saying sex isn’t mentioned in federal law.

[–]BEB[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

She does seem to be a bit of a fibber ;-)

[–]fuck_reddit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So, um, what the fuck was the Civil Rights Act referring to??? Up until the modern day “sex” meant “biological sex.” You didn’t need to clarify what was obviously implied.