Preserved for prosperity / admittedly, virtue signaling.
In a thread with a probable troll, who was claiming bathroom bills let men into girls bathrooms.
I rather liked my retort. Am I wrong in any particular? I could very much be wrong! I get words wrong all the time, and am by no means an expert. If I am wrong, please tell me.
------------------------------
None of that allows men in women's bathrooms. Full Stop.
Those bills allow transgender persons to use the bathroom of their gender, rather than the sex the government inappropriately assigned them at birth.
To say otherwise is to allow the government to decide what sex you are.
------------------------------
Why do I love this? Because I get to use the language of small government. Because I get to cast gendered bathrooms as big-government intervention is the most intimate affairs. Because the troll asked if I know what gender and sex mean.
Once again, if I am wrong in any particular this'd be a perfect time and place to inform me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Title IX doesn't work unless you are willing to let the government decide what sex (and race too I suppose) you are.
ReplyDeleteTitle IX does not stipulate how gender is determined.
ReplyDeleteCan you explain, Brian? Title IX says Men and Women's school activities need to be treated equally, if separated. I don't remember having to pass any sex (DNA, hormone, or visual) test to get on a girls team. I needed to declare that was were I belonged and that was good enough for everyone.
ReplyDeleteDianne Harris Because if all it takes is to take someone's word for whatever gender they say they are, suddenly all the girls and womans sports teams could be full of men claiming femininity. And, how dare you question their sincerity! Then someone makes a Title IX claim base on such disingenuity and a court gets
ReplyDeleteto decide the issue. Thus, to enforce the law means the government gets to make that judgement.
[ Aside: Things have been civil so far. Please keep it that way. I'm looking at you, Dianne Harris. Be nice. Kisses. ]
ReplyDeleteAs a point, currently when men and women's marathons have different prizes, the women's is invariably smaller even when if the woman beats the men. The way we treat women is horrible.
ReplyDeleteBrian Renninger …and then that team competes in the women's league. Not to mention, that's an absurd hypothetical.
ReplyDeleteYou can question the sincerity of people's claims, but you have to do it by looking at the greater context of their lives. You know, applying thought and reason. Also, the social stigma of being trans is pretty intense, so the likelihood of that scenario is pretty low.
ReplyDeleteJosh Roby Matt Johnson
ReplyDeleteIt is an absurd hypothetical but, it's the sort of thing people trying to challenge a law do. And, it's also the sort of thing people who like to win at sports at all costs do. A more realistic scenario would be a team with just one or two ringers.
And, regardless of the scenario. The first step in any title IX enforcement is establishing whether the complainants have standing which means deciding whether they are of the protected class. Thus, again, to enforce Title IX requires the government to decide on matters of gender.
weird how you didn't plus in Dianne Harris , Brian Renninger . I wonder why?
ReplyDeleteThe claimant having standing has nothing to do with their personal sex. Men can file title IX cases too. The law has to do with two groups must be treated equally. Having standing is defined by the potential to be harmed by the two groups being unequal. No chromosomal tests required.
ReplyDeleteAlso I looked into Brian's posts. It is clear he has no understanding of the definition of treason. So, I'm no longer going to consider any legal argument from him worth my time.
ReplyDelete::reads Brian Renninger page::
ReplyDeleteYou may be the person I hae been looking for, Brian Renninger !
I've been looking for someone who voted for DT who can explain the appeal without mentioning HRC or Obama. Are you such a person?
If so, let's have that conversation here: https://plus.google.com/+WilliamNichols/posts/iEsEgTmvBdB?sfc=true
I've tried this three times without success.
Dianne Harris Wow. Really? Could you be more specific? Though, I'm not sure that moving the goalposts to a separate topic really is relevant.
ReplyDeleteAs to treason "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
Ah, I see now. You didn't care for my little doggerel variant on the Guy Fawkes poem. If you care to continue the discussion please feel free to comment on that post. I welcome any insight you have to offer.
Dianne Harris And, regardless, of your opinion on my other opinions (not that you have stated what you actually disagree with), where did I claim "chromosomal tests" would be required? That's just straw manning. I claimed one thing. Title IX is predicated on the courts getting to decide one's gender (or sex). You say "Having standing is defined by the potential to be harmed by the two groups being unequal." And, I believe you are correct on this point. But, you haven't thought it all the way through. If one person is harmed by another then the determination of standing the courts will do is predicated on the inequality being claimed. If someone, for example, is claiming harm based on gender disparities the courts will make a determination as to whether such a disparity exists before proceeding. Such a finding will look into gender because that is exactly the foundation of the claim. Look, I am all for Trans people using whatever bathroom they like (though many woman I know are not). And, I am all for not having the government judging people's private parts. But, the post asked for weaknesses in the argument, and Title IX does fall in the face of the argument that determining gender isn't the government's business. Like it (or me) or not.
ReplyDeleteBrian Renninger I mean, the obvious way to go is to have a boys team and a girls team. People cna choose to be on whichever team they identify as. Each team gets the same stuff.
ReplyDeleteBoom, title IX satisfied. It says nothing about trans or non-binary or agender individuals. So long as each team receives the same benefits, pretty sure title IX is satisfied.
William Nichols I think you are missing the point. Title IX may well be satisfied in your example. Nonetheless, you are putting the government in the position to determine whether it is satisfied or not. Which is the crux of your argument that the government should stay out of determining such things.
ReplyDeleteBrian Renninger In the example, deciding on gender is specifically and absolutely up to the individual. The kids choose which gender for which sport.
ReplyDeleteThe government then only cares if each is funded equally.
Boom, government out of deciding if I'm a boy or a girl (I get to decide), and each sport has an equal amount of resources.
See? Don't think I'm missing the point at all.
William Nichols You can assert that it is up to rhe individual. But, the moment someone makes a claim, it is not. In order for the government to determine equal funding they will need to rule on gender because the judgement on equality is tied to it. Imagine two teams teams of 12. One team has nine girls, and three trans girls; the other team 12 boys. Each team get $100 per person in funding. Someone then files a Title IX claim -- it's unequal boys are getting more funding! Wha? If the government considers the trans girls to be boys, then claim is true boys are getting $1500 and girls $900. If the government considers trans girls to be girls then the funding is equal. The government has to decide where it stands in this regard. Even if the government rules that it will just take people's personal word for it, that's still a decision on how government will interpret gender and it's a decision as I originally pointed out makes Title IX unenforeable. But, I've spent time on this. Take it as a flaw in your argument or not.
ReplyDelete