The Republican obsession with genitalia - SLUniverse Forums
Navigation » SLUniverse Forums > Off Topic Discussion > Politics, Religion & Society » The Republican obsession with genitalia

Politics, Religion & Society Topics pertaining to politics, religion, philosophy, and social issues. Not for the faint of heart. Also, do not post while drunk, suffering from food poisoning, or while on a low carb diet. You have been warned.

LIONHEART - We Have Your Land
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-17-2017, 05:54 PM   #1 (permalink)

*SLU Supporter*
Porsupah Ree's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Probably near London or San Francisco.
Posts: 3,513
My Mood:
SL Join Date: February 2006
Client: Firestorm and Project Bento
The Republican obsession with genitalia

So, those funmeisters in Congress are at it again..

The bill reads: “The purposes of this Act are— (1) to prevent the executive branch from unilaterally rewriting Federal civil rights laws by enacting or implementing any policy or undertaking any enforcement action that is based on construing the term ‘sex’ or ‘gender’ to mean ‘gender identity’; and (2) to ensure that gender identity is not treated as a protected class in Federal law or policy without the affirmative approval of the people’s representatives in Congress.”

In short, they want to ensure that the executive branch can’t take any steps to protect transgender citizens. According to this bill, only Congress can pass a bill which includes or recognizes them. Guess I must’ve missed the part of the Constitution that designates “transgender rights” as the exclusive purview of the legislative branch!

The bill continues, just in case its exclusionary intent wasn’t already clear.

“In determining the meaning of any Federal civil rights law, and of any related ruling, regulation, guidance, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ and their equivalents shall not be interpreted to mean ‘gender identity’ or its equivalent, and the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and their equivalents shall refer exclusively to a person’s genetic sex.”

A.K.A. in addition to pretending that trans people don’t deserve civil rights protections, this bill also pretends that intersex and non-binary people don’t exist. You’ll notice that the writers of the bill don’t define what they mean by “genetic sex” – and that’s because it’s famously difficult to define, with numerous factors involved. And many of these factors aren’t easy to check, even the supposedly “definite” and “binary” differentiators like chromosomes.

(For instance, I’m an AFAB cis woman myself, and I have zero accessible confirmation that I’m XX. Like, it isn’t exactly on my birth certificate or license. Nor should it be. So am I supposed to let the government run a DNA test any time I want to qualify for Title IX protections? To file a workplace discrimination lawsuit? Even if the bill wasn’t disgustingly transphobic, it would still be highly impractical and expensive to enforce. How does one “prove” one’s “genetic sex”?)

Lastly, the bill explicitly forbids extending any “protected class” protections to transgender people. “No Federal civil rights law shall be interpreted to treat gender identity or transgender status as a protected class, unless such law expressly designates ‘gender identity’ or ‘transgender status’ as a protected class.”

These affected civil rights laws include Title IX, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and “any other Federal law or provision thereof prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.”
"Separated lovers cheat absence by a thousand fancies which have their own reality. They are prevented from seeing one another and they cannot write; nevertheless they find countless mysterious ways of corresponding, by sending each other the song of birds, the scent of flowers, the laughter of children, the light of the sun, the sighing of the wind, and the gleam of the stars - all the beauties of creation." -- Victor Hugo
Porsupah Ree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 06:29 PM   #2 (permalink)
Nasty Brit
Innula Zenovka's Avatar
Grande Cabalista
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 18,150
SL Join Date: 17 June 2007
Business: Something Spunky
Is this a serious piece of legislation? I mean, does it stand any chance of success and, if it does become law, does it stand any chance of surviving judicial scrutiny by judges who, as the article suggests, might not be too keen on the idea Congress can unilaterally re-write the constitution (which is probably going to annoy Judge Gorsuch a great deal more than does protecting transgender rights annoy him)?

Or is it simply a bit of legislative theatre, designed to show the folks back home that their representatives are hard at work in Washington?
Innula Zenovka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 06:43 PM   #3 (permalink)
Not a Supervillian
Veritable Quandry's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Caledon
Posts: 6,965
My Mood:
They are literally trying to redefine gender. It is not the same thing as sex.
Winner of the First Annual Leslie Nielsen Memorial "Best Catch" Trophy.

Et cum patronus tuus uerbo oportet causidicum, vos postulo causidicum.
Veritable Quandry is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
Old 07-17-2017, 07:21 PM   #4 (permalink)
Just call me Beth
Aribeth Zelin's Avatar
Singing along with old music
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Out in the mists
Posts: 9,373
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Oct 4 2009
Business: Moondrops ; Tempus Fugit; Faerycat Designs; sPunk
Client: Firestorm
Yes they can do this, however, since it is patently unconstitutional, depending on what sorts of Justices the SCOTUS has once this got to the Courts, well... it would most like be striken down, much the same as DOMA was.

The problem is, I'm not really sure how even the most conservative justice could think this is constitutional, much less point to where in the Constitution such is allowed - its fairly easy, I think, much like with same sex marriage, to point to where such protections already exist are in the Constitution. But I'm also not a lawyer.

Aribeth Zelin is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Said Thanks :
2 Users Agreed:
Old 07-18-2017, 01:42 AM   #5 (permalink)
That Bitch

*SLU Supporter*
Void's Avatar
Innocent as far as you know
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Online
Posts: 14,947
My Mood:
SL Join Date: late 04 original account, mid 05 current

"[they] keep using that word. I do not think it means what [they] think it means"

also hasn't SCOTUS already ruled on this previously?
- These eyes can do more than see
Originally Posted by Cajsa Lilliehook View Post
It's not enough to care about liberty if the only liberty you care about is your own.
Originally Posted by Jupiter Firelyte View Post
Why doesn't anyone ever ask, "What is the real meaning of the winter solstice?"
Originally Posted by Eboni Khan View Post
Thanks for being passive agressive.
Void is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Said Thanks :
1 User Agreed:
Old 07-19-2017, 01:33 AM   #6 (permalink)
Miss Congeniality
Soda Sullivan's Avatar
Dressed up like a car crash
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,516
My Mood:
Client: Black Dragon, FS, SL Viewer
speaking of an obsession with genitalia...

Steve Bannon Reportedly Attacked Paul Ryan As ‘A Limp-Dick Motherfucker’

...who was born in a petri dish at the Heritage Foundation
Soda Sullivan is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Laughed:
Old 07-19-2017, 12:56 PM   #7 (permalink)
only mostly banned

*SLU Supporter*
Grandma Bates's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 991
My Mood:
Business: Building in Motion
Client: References available on request.
Blog Entries: 59
Originally Posted by Soda Sullivan View Post
Okay, so maybe he is correct about this... but, even a broken clock is right twice a day!
"From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2." - Principia Mathematica, Russel and Whitehead, page 379 (1st ed.)

"I understand that people are scared, but they should listen to facts." - Ryan White

Grandma Bates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2017, 10:49 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
bcBrian's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Daytona Beach, Fl.
Posts: 1,827
I am not a lawyer either, but I don't think you need to be one to see a problem here without considering the bill's intent.

It is this part:
The bill reads: “The purposes of this Act are— (1) to prevent the executive branch from unilaterally rewriting Federal civil rights laws by enacting or implementing any policy or undertaking any enforcement action that is based on [. . .]
The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are separated and defined only by the Constitution.
Congress does not have the authority to limit or otherwise decide the scope or powers of one of the other branches of government.
bcBrian is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
Old 07-19-2017, 11:25 PM   #9 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Central USA
Posts: 32
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 03/21/2004
Business: Archaic
Client: Firestorm
Not directly related to the actual topic, but I have a theory about the republican genitalia obsession I felt I should share. You see, the brains of nearly all congressional republicans are infested with a form of burrowing insect linked into a hive mind that is attempting to destroy the human race. Since most of the insects are sexless drones, they find the concept of having genitalia of any kind such a novel idea that they spend far to much time and energy obsessing over it rather than getting on with the actual human extermination.

Yes I'm kidding, but try to tell me it wouldn't make republican actions of the last few years make sense...
Grey Mars is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
2 Users Like This:

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On