SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> US Federal Gender definition change
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1540217187

Message started by Eegore on 10/22/18 at 07:06:26

Title: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by Eegore on 10/22/18 at 07:06:26

"Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth"

I'm ok with having a unified definition to base policy off of but I wonder about things like gender reassignment surgery. For instance this would mean prisoners born as males that had full gender reassignment surgery will have to be moved to male prisons, and born females will now be moved to female prisons.

When gender reassignment is complete there are hormone treatments etc. and if born a male and having had gender reassignment completed say 15 years ago, healthcare plans could take away hormone coverage causing more health problems.

Gender identity is more fluid, harder to define, and more easily abused, but I think complete reassignment shows a bit more commitment to the gender change. I know some are concerned that this could lead back to homosexual couples not being able to have spousal benefits which with healthcare especially can be extremely expensive, or at times life-shortening. If a male gets reassignment surgery and as a female marries another male, that by the proposed definition is a homosexual relationship.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by MnSpring on 10/22/18 at 07:24:27

18383A322F385D0 wrote:

"Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth"

Can you post a link, that gives the full version of that new, 'law', or, regulation ?

Where their is no description of the difference between, gender Reassignment and gender Identity.

And no possible remedy of someone having surgery years ago, as to how they are functioning today.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/22/18 at 08:47:45

If he gets it turned wrong side out and is now able to satisfy his husband, I'll happily call it a woman, just as soon as it grows a womb, develops ovaries and has a menstrual cycle.
That we could look at genes, that's Science, for the unaware, we could identify everyone . The unicorns among us, those very few people who actually have the physical traits of both sexes, IDK.
If it's BORN with a thingy, guess what!?
ITSA BOOY!
And WILL BE SO FOREVER.

So says SCIENCE.

You're not a science denier, are you?

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by Eegore on 10/22/18 at 12:31:06

"Can you post a link, that gives the full version of that new, 'law', or, regulation ?

Where their is no description of the difference between, gender Reassignment and gender Identity.

And no possible remedy of someone having surgery years ago, as to how they are functioning today."

No.

"You're not a science denier, are you?"

No.

I am not denying factual science which is why I stated: "I'm ok with having a unified definition to base policy off of"

What I am attempting to say is that I see a varying degree of commitment to gender roles among people who are affected by government definition of gender. Some claim psychologically that they are opposite gender while other go through physical changes over many years. It is less likely that a surgically and pharmaceutically gender reassigned person is trying to get into a college and then just flip around after they graduate.

Science isn't saying that a male is now female, that person is. Something about our right to the Pursuit of Happiness could apply here given that gender reassignment is not illegal.

An example is that there are some veterans that get prescription medication while they are enlisted, and it used to be that those prescriptions became so cost-ineffective to get after discharge that most did not continue the medications which resulted in higher healthcare costs to the VA, as well as higher suicide and homicide rates. Once AFA guaranteed their medications things improved.

People who have been able to afford gender-reassignment hormones at an affordable cost may lose this option because of a definition change. This has more to do with the effect of the definition change than the definition itself.

By science I am European, but by definition I am American.

Illegal immigrants by science are not American, legal immigrants that gain citizenship are by science still an immigrant and not American. There's a commitment (and economic) difference between legal and illegal immigrants, which I see as being similar to how people commit to gender-change roles.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/22/18 at 15:26:54

Science isn't saying that a male is now female, that person is.

Science says otherwise.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/22/18 at 16:02:36

@Eegore

Interesting topic for this particular forum. As you say there's two completely separate issues. Regarding the first issue, personal opinion in this instance have to be subjugated to the laws of the land and the social realities. Having said that, a man who has had his Bwana Dik cut off and pumped full of hormone does not make him a woman. I'd respect the decision and call her she and respect her right to do this, and be treated as a woman. This is a tricky one for misogynists though because they don't appreciate a women and see them more like female men anyway.

On the second issue. It's plainly fcuking ludicrous. However I am actually tackling this bs in my own work which is a wider sexual philosophy. We need to educate the upcoming crop of teens and I'm currently building a complete reworking of sexual education in schools.

Apparently I can identify as a squirrel if I want, which is nuts. Jordon Peterson has an amusing discussion with a whiney little baitch professor that's a bit of a riot...

https://youtu.be/SiijS_9hPkM

P.S. FFS when is someone going to turn of the fcuking forum 'bad words' spell correction. It a pointless anachronism.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by LostArtist on 10/22/18 at 16:18:32

6A757374696E5F6F5F67757932000 wrote:

Science isn't saying that a male is now female, that person is.

Science says otherwise.

and you say screw that person's deeply held personal values and let science only rule?

so there's no room for a human's personal values, only hard, real science.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/22/18 at 16:29:12

Let me add that in my work my primary concern is only for the kids who are growing up in this very fcuked up world, because they do not have a chance they do not have the knowledge to make an informed decision. We are in a situation now when people think it's OK for a 3 year old to decide their gender identity.

Oh and on a side issue, you know how we're always hearing about guys who have lived a normal male life, married with kids, suddenly deciding they were really 'gay' all the time, how come we never hear about gay people who come out as straight? It's the same frikken concept. Or if people can suddenly change their gender identity or back again on a whim, it makes a mockery of humanity.

http://https://lgbtqnation-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/2016/09/Cs1FmLFUIAA4G0u.jpg

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/22/18 at 16:35:00

7655494E7B484E53494E3A0 wrote:

[quote author=6A757374696E5F6F5F67757932000 link=1540217187/0#4 date=1540247214]Science isn't saying that a male is now female, that person is.

Science says otherwise.

and you say screw that person's deeply held personal values and let science only rule?

so there's no room for a human's personal values, only hard, real science. [/quote]

Lots of mentally ill people have deeply held beliefs. Living in delusion that they are a giraffe or zebra or girl with an unfortunately located thingy doesn't mean they are a girl.
Funny how I'm a science denier for buying the Bullshit of how mankind is causing the problem with the climate, but I'm Supposed to ignore the absolute science of sex, hmm, funny in it?

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by MnSpring on 10/22/18 at 16:41:29

47554142555351340 wrote:

Or if people can suddenly change their gender identity or back again on a whim, it makes a mockery of humanity.

Well in this country, suddenly changing gender identity, will depend on if a pervert wants to see little girls going to the bathroom.

And all curtsy of the UL, Socialist, Progressive, Fairy Dust Sprinklers.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/22/18 at 16:53:57

3B293D3E292F2D480 wrote:

You've got guts to be involved in that.
Thank You for doing that.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by Matchless G11 on 10/22/18 at 17:18:20

7A687C7F686E6C090 wrote:

"there are gays that reverted to being strait, but you never hear of them, not the narrative that radical gays want.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by Matchless G11 on 10/22/18 at 17:20:55

Lets see,
I can make a Fiero into a Ferrari right?
Well no amount a part changing will turn a Fiero into a Ferrari.
It is deep down in the d.n.a

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by Eegore on 10/22/18 at 18:36:14

Again I am not trying to debate IF a man is a woman if they get gender reassignment surgery. I am asking if they should have certain privileges revoked, like paying equal for healthcare coverage.

Science says they are a male. They are male, no debate about him being a male. This is a male in the next subject.

But as a male that has gender reassignment that person gets the same rights as if he was born a woman, like paying for healthcare. If the definition changes then insurers can take away the hormone coverage because of "science". If he had been born a woman they would provide coverage.

So if an immigrant is scientifically "Australian" as in born to parents originating from Australia (parents hold citizenship) and is born in Australia, science dictates that person Australian. So once that Australian takes all US citizenship courses and becomes, legally, a US citizen he is an "American" citizen by law and thus by "definition". Science says Australian, US law says American, so he gets all American citizen rights and privileges. "Science" is being used loosely here as a way of defining geographical origin of birth.

So if a man born in America to legally American citizen parents and surgically reassigns himself, legally, he is still scientifically a man and by "definition" a man, therefore he as an American citizen does not get all privileges.

He is a man, the discussion is not about IF he is a man.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/22/18 at 19:16:49

man born in America to legally American citizen parents and surgically reassigns himself, legally, he is still scientifically a man and by "definition" a man, therefore he as an American citizen does not get all privileges.

Huhh?

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by Eegore on 10/22/18 at 20:53:51

If the definition changes to exclusively what was presented, health insurance can deny coverage of hormone therapy or similar healthcare because by definition he no longer qualifies.

That healthcare privilege is gone because the Federal definition changed. This happened to Veterans with certain prescription medications in the past.

I just wonder if people who go to the extent of surgical body modification and full lifestyle change should be in the same pool as people who just "identify" and do nothing else.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/22/18 at 23:55:18

FFIW, a hoo hoo doolie, should always go into the lady's cha cha, never into a poop chute. I don't care whether you're gay or straight or which gender the poop chute is.

This is what young kids need to know. Now adults can do whatever the fcuk they like as long as it doesn't cause a murder. The reason I say this is because if a young confused teen suspects he might be gay when really he's just shy like *all* guys, needs to know that once the brown barrier has been breeched psychological damage will occur that can fcuk one up for life.

This however is too frank for militant gays. Take that whiney baitch professor I linked to earlier, I think that many, (not all) people, and definitely two people I know who have had gender reassignment surgery are very fcuked up now.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/22/18 at 23:58:05

@Mn
Well in this country, suddenly changing gender identity, will depend on if a pervert wants to see little girls going to the bathroom.

No, that's just a very weird thing to say, and it's a little scary too that people think like that, but it does explain a lot of your postings. Being a bit confused does not make a 'pervert' whatever you mean by that term. However Trump is probably not gay or confused but he's certainly a creepy kind of pervert by my definition.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by WebsterMark on 10/23/18 at 05:27:39

I think it's true that by definition, anyone declaring themselves to be a gender other than what their biology indicates, is mentally ill or at the very least, let's call it mentally compromised.

However, to be fair, everyone of us could fall into that catagory except that for the vast majority of us, our mentally compromised issues blend easily into our society. The classic Felix Unger case of excessive cleaning and organizing for example. That's not a normal set of behaviors, but it does not significantly effect that person's standing in society. While we usually make jokes about it, nyphomania, is a real metal illness that makes what we call a normal life a struggle. I knew a woman like this. It made a normal life virtually impossible. Everyday was a struggle. Most of us are lucky that whatever's mis-wired in our brains does not manifest itself in a manner that makes life hard.

I would be curious to see mental health statistics on those who claim to be transgender. I suspect in this day and age, suicides rates are high after gender surgery for example.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by Eegore on 10/23/18 at 06:40:03

"I suspect in this day and age, suicides rates are high after gender surgery for example"

The suicide rate for surgical reassignment is low. Transgender suicide rates are higher than average, but full reassignment - with hormone therapy is very low.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/
https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/
https://4thwavenow.com/2015/08/03/the-41-trans-suicide-rate-a-tale-of-flawed-data-and-lazy-journalists/

Again I don't mean to question the intent, gender, mental health, economic status or any other aspect of a surgically reassigned individual.

I am questioning if the proposed definition should revoke healthcare privileges.

Should healthcare privileges be revoked if someone is surgically reassigned and mentally ill?

Should healthcare privileges be revoked if someone is surgically reassigned and suicidal?

Should healthcare privileges be revokes if someone is surgically reassigned and (add your assessment of the person here)?

If legal immigrants are scientifically not American, should they get all American privileges? Should American citizens that are scientifically female and gender reassigned to male get all privileges of an American male?

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by Eegore on 10/23/18 at 06:44:47

"Well in this country, suddenly changing gender identity, will depend on if a pervert wants to see little girls going to the bathroom"

"No, that's just a very weird thing to say, and it's a little scary too that people think like that, but it does explain a lot of your postings"

It is true that people will "identify" as necessary for personal advantage. I can't think of a reason why some people wouldn't do this, such as identifying to get government aid, a scholarship, or satisfy sexual desire.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by MShipley on 10/23/18 at 07:40:25

It's a free country and people can believe they are what they want. They can butcher their bodies and take cancer causing drugs. My personal opinion has no bearing on their life and their opinion has no bearing on mine. However there is a legal aspect here. DNA will solve that.

Here is what I do not like! Making it an issue! I do not appreciate our Public School system forcing studies on such nonsense to 3rd graders or even younger. I do not appreciate them teaching kids that they have the right to have sex with whomever they want, whenever they want, without consequences.

I personally think that sex is a sacred and special thing to be held in high esteem. Additionally I think the relationship that leads to sex is a sacred and special thing to be held in high esteem. We are teaching our kids that it is nothing more than what dogs do.

Feminism, didn't elevate anything for women. Just turned them into the same self centered sluts that most men are.

Going back to the initial issue, hey, it's a free country you can do what you want. However if you are not mature enough to drink until you are 18 then you certainly are no mature enough to make a sex change prior top 18.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by verslagen1 on 10/23/18 at 08:48:20

6545474F5245200 wrote:

So if an immigrant is scientifically "Australian" as in born to parents originating from Australia (parents hold citizenship) and is born in Australia, science dictates that person Australian. So once that Australian takes all US citizenship courses and becomes, legally, a US citizen he is an "American" citizen by law and thus by "definition". Science says Australian, US law says American, so he gets all American citizen rights and privileges. "Science" is being used loosely here as a way of defining geographical origin of birth.

Unless the parents are aborigines they were immigrants to Australia so scientifically they are most likely from a bloodline emanating from Europe just like most (some) Americans... they just talk funny.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by WebsterMark on 10/23/18 at 09:11:46

The can of worms this opens up keeps growing....
I believe it was this week, at a high school track meet, the top 2 winners from the girls categories were transgender boys who had surgery or are in the pre-surgery stages.

Consider the girls who 'lost'. They did not lose to other girls who worked as hard as them and competed fairly, they lost to boys with a biological advantage.

Now you could say this is a rare event and in the big picture, not important. But did you say that to the lesbian couple who said one baker out of thousands wouldn’t bake their cake? That one event was so important it spawned a lawsuit that went to the highest court…

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/23/18 at 12:02:51

@MShipley,

I personally think that sex is a sacred and special thing to be held in high esteem. Additionally I think the relationship that leads to sex is a sacred and special thing to be held in high esteem. We are teaching our kids that it is nothing more than what dogs do.

The above statement is the most intelligent, succinct and spot on comment that I have witnessed or heard said by anyone at any time. I suspect though that you do not know how right you are.

I have a website where I am currently doing something about this situation to right this wrong. It is the reason that I was against same sex marriages. What bugged me was not the same sex union at all, right or wrong it's none of my business but it is impossible for me to break through the militant gay bullsh!t. What is wrong about same sex marriage, is the WORD, 'marriage'. It demeans the institution, of marriage. You may find this surprising seeing as I appear to waste my time on the sh!t show that is this forum, and it surprises me too, but there you go.

This is why for me the most destructive thing about Trump's influence is his debasing of women. It's clear that asshats like Trump have never known a woman other than as an accessory to their life.

Check out the interview with Smokey Robinson.

https://youtu.be/ZaMX0Cs5Bc4
https://youtu.be/XlVQ8XuSrSA

In my work I am completely redefining the whole concept of marriage and I take it to a level that gives it real meaning in the 21st century.

Women protect the world and the men must protect the women, or the world will not be a place worth living in much less raising children.

Feminism, didn't elevate anything for women. Just turned them into the same self centered sluts that most men are.

Yes.

Going back to the initial issue, hey, it's a free country you can do what you want. However if you are not mature enough to drink until you are 18 then you certainly are no mature enough to make a sex change prior top 18.

this is why the entire sex education curriculum needs to be reworked. Unfortunately the people whose job it is to work this out are themselves devoid of any real knowledge. The knowledge required needs to be direct knowledge. It needs to come from someone who has walked the talked, not from someone who talks the talk who got it from someone who pulled it out of their ass.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by Eegore on 10/23/18 at 12:13:43

You may be right about defining the activities, status, economic position, sports prowess, bathroom usage, potential for suicidal ideations, normalcy, potential for population growth etc. of surgically reassigned persons.

Should surgically reassigned persons in the US be denied certain types of healthcare coverage that is provided to US citizens born of the same gender?

Science says they are their born gender, does that mean they should no longer get healthcare coverage, that they pay for, of the gender they are reassigned?

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by WebsterMark on 10/23/18 at 12:25:57

Should surgically reassigned persons in the US be denied certain types of healthcare coverage that is provided to US citizens born of the same gender?

Legally denied coverage? No.

But that doesn't mean coverage is guaranteed.
Healthcare providers and insurance companies can choose to perform and/or charge a fee. Which also means they can choose not to.

But I'm not sure what that would be. What health issues are unique to gender that are also uniquely transferred during the transgender procedures? Not breast cancer as men get breast cancer. Could a woman transgendered to a man get testicular cancer? I don’t know.
If you’re talking mental health issues, then the door's probably wide open because I’m not sure there’s a gender unique mental health diagnosis, is there?

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by Eegore on 10/23/18 at 12:33:15

Hormone therapy is the primary one. Its a lifelong application, like someone that needs to take insulin, it isn't required but without it span/quality of life is deteriorated.

With the definition change insurers can leverage that to deny coverage. Just like now without the individual mandate they can start denying pre-existing conditions.

Mental health is not part of the equation since there is no part of the NIHM that considers gender reassignment to be an illness so health insurers can not deny based off of that.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by WebsterMark on 10/23/18 at 12:58:16

Isn't hormone therapy a result of the transgender procedure?

If someone purposely contracted diabetes, would an insurance company be liable to provide insulin for the rest of their life?

Are you working up to making the point that transgender surgery is as medically necessary as bypass surgery and therefore must be covered by any policy or performed by any doctor or medical facility?

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by WebsterMark on 10/23/18 at 13:03:18

I have a website where I am currently doing something about this situation to right this wrong. It is the reason that I was against same sex marriages. What bugged me was not the same sex union at all, right or wrong it's none of my business but it is impossible for me to break through the militant gay bullsh!t. What is wrong about same sex marriage, is the WORD, 'marriage'. It demeans the institution, of marriage. You may find this surprising seeing as I appear to waste my time on the sh!t show that is this forum, and it surprises me too, but there you go.

Yes, I’m surprised that you go back and forth between a giant d!ck and a reasonable person. I too would describe my position on same sex marriage. If they want to call it a union with all the same legal standings, I'm fine with that, but don't call it a marriage because it's not.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by Eegore on 10/23/18 at 14:36:19

"Isn't hormone therapy a result of the transgender procedure?"

Yes. So is thyroid issues, among hundreds of other reasons, including simply being a female that needs them to control excessive vaginal bleeding. Vaginal bleeding also occurs in gender reassigned persons.

"If someone purposely contracted diabetes, would an insurance company be liable to provide insulin for the rest of their life?"

They would be liable to provide insulin at the contracted cost margin within the regulated parameters of the explanation of benefits within the provider contract. They can not deny current customers care, but they can now deny coverage to new customers. (Pre-existing conditions)

"Are you working up to making the point that transgender surgery is as medically necessary as bypass surgery and therefore must be covered by any policy or performed by any doctor or medical facility?"

No.

Gender reassignment is elective, like collarbone repair, cartilage repair, breast enhancement or reduction, or any other elective surgery that does not result in the death of the person if it is not done. (medically necessary)

If someone gets breast enhancement, and their insurance covers prescription medications that insurance company can not deny those prescriptions based off the fact that breast enhancement was not essential to life. Its in the explanation of benefits and must be provided or they are in violation of contract.

Estrogen treatment is provided to females per the provider contract. If a male is surgically reassigned, by choice not by medical need, an pays for their insurance, they can receive estrogen therapy at the negotiated cost. If the Federal definition forces medical centers/insurance companies to maintain that a surgically reassigned person is male, then they no longer have to provide the estrogen therapy per the contract. The only thing that changed was the definition, not the physical person (post surgery).

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/23/18 at 14:54:37

@WM Yes, I’m surprised that you go back and forth between a giant d!ck and a reasonable person. I too would describe my position on same sex marriage. If they want to call it a union with all the same legal standings, I'm fine with that, but don't call it a marriage because it's not.

If ever I talk like a d!ck it's because I'm responding to some d!ck bullsh!t. I'm not saying that's a justification but it's an explanation. Remember, forum discussions especially political ones are ripe for game theory, and the game I play is known as Tit for Tat.

Tit for Tat wins every time it's used throughout the animal kingdom, people have devised the most complex strategies to win at competitions on game theory. Tit for Tat wins every time. And by 'win' I mean the best outcome for everyone. You see you almost got it, but you couldn't resist adding gratuitous 'd!ck' bit in which you will have to admit tries to imply that your posting is beyond reproach.

Even Tit for Two Tats was tried, and if you read about it, then you'll understand why when I came into this forum and was instantly abused that I did not let it go. In organised competitions, TiT for Tat always produces a better outcome than Tit for Two Tats.

But enough of Game Theory, let it be seen that you and I can agree on something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

Here's a lecture from a series of Game Theory, the Tit for Tat explanation begins at 27mins and 30 seconds

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvaikbvgu3qdi1s/16%20Does%20This%20Stuff%20Really%20Work.mp3?dl=0

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/18 at 05:40:32

I can't devote time today for that, but I will this week and get back to you.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by MShipley on 10/24/18 at 07:54:05

516364757263744B67746D060 wrote:

In 20 years there will be NO actual women in sports.

Title: Re: US Federal Gender definition change
Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/18 at 19:15:49

Even Tit for Two Tats was tried, and if you read about it, then you'll understand why when I came into this forum and was instantly abused that I did not let it go. In organised competitions, TiT for Tat always produces a better outcome than Tit for Two Tats

Okay, so I've read up on this.

My first thought is most of steps in game theory are intuitive or at least learned by experience. I read and watched several videos on various game theories and I can say I, and many other colleagues of mine, act in accordance with game theories without consciously recognizing a particular response and then responding accordingly.

That's not really a surprise because I think the science of game theory is simply articulating the proven techniques of dealing with various situations.

So my question to your comment above is when you came into this forum and were 'abused', did you consciously determine which game theory to respond with?

I mentioned in another post in response to an economic thread that all of us are among the best economists in the world because we deal with economics every day and have learned in great detail the ins and outs of the economic world. We don't realize we're doing it, but we are. So I think it is with some Game Theory. That doesn't mean you couldn't learn to recognize situations and respond in a manner that improves your odds. I learned a couple interesting things while reading and watching the videos I found.