Trump rolls back transgender healthcare protections...but wait, there's more!

God-Emperor Trump, in his infinite wisdom, decided it would be a good idea to take away any protection transgender folks might need hen facing discrimination in the healthcare world.

During Pride Month.

During civil rights protests.

On the anniversary of the Pulse nightclub mass shooting where almost 50 people were murdered, which was a gay bar.

Here is the fine print:

Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, known as the Health Care Rights Law, "prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in certain health programs and activities." A rule enacted in 2016 interpreted the ban on sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity, building on similar interpretations in other federal civil rights laws and court rulings, and termination of pregnancy.

Here is the so-called reason:

But the US Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement Friday that it was eliminating "certain provisions of the 2016 Rule that exceeded the scope of the authority delegated by Congress in Section 1557. HHS will enforce Section 1557 by returning to the government's interpretation of sex discrimination according to the plain meaning of the word 'sex' as male or female and as determined by biology."

Now, if I am being honest, I don't feel that is an entirely bad reason: medicine should be acultural, it should be strictly science. If you were born male, then male you are in the eyes of science; you can change your appearance, behavior, and everything....but you can't change your chromosomes (as far as I know...). I say this objectively, not as discrimination, because frankly some medicine has adverse effects depending on your gender, so you should identify [to doctors] as your sex [and not your gender].

That's not to say I don't think transgender people are wrong, nor do they not need protection; if this was helping them with healthcare and preventing them from being discriminated against, then it should stay in place.

TL;DR: Trump took away protections for a certain type of people the right don't like.

My question to you is this: is Trump trying to alienate people? As the election gets closer, will his actions keeping get more and more extreme batshit insane?

Oh ya the "there's more!" part of this is he is also giving a talk in Tulsa where a horribly civil rights offense was committed. So, you know, let's talk about that, too.

Now he's hurting the right people.

What a Pride Month this has been, JK Rowling melts down on her stance on trans people and Trump does this.

What did JK Rowling do?

I know her views sort of match with my own, but what happened recently?

Most of the people I know who lean to the right have absolutely no issue with transgender people, so long as you stay off their lawn.

You're awfully lucky.

So, you state your ‘problem’ in your copied opener, reason it in your second copy, and the issue is what now? Wait, no need to answer, you’re just looking to complain about ‘something’ because Trump.

‘TL;DR: Trump took away protections for a certain type of people’

By, protecting them in case of an emergency? The nerve!

‘the right don’t like’

False.

Notable LGBT conservatives...

Guy Benson – gay

Peter Boykin - gay

Pim Fortuyn - gay

Tammy Bruce – lesbian

Mary Cheney – lesbian

Jeromy Farkas – bisexual

Caitlyn Jenner - transgender[32]

Javier Maroto – gay

Chadwick Moore (journalist) – gay

Deroy Murdock – gay

Douglas Murray – gay

Dave Rubin – gay

Brandon Straka – gay[35]

Andrew Sullivan – gay

Leo Varadkar – gay

Alice Weidel – lesbian

Ana Brnabić - lesbian

Blaire White – transgender

Lucian Wintrich – gay

Milo Yiannopoulos – gay

David Starkey - gay

Daniel Kawczynski - bisexual

Darren Grimes - gay

Dan Wootton - gay

Congress has the power to expand the protections of the original law, and if the current administration deems the former administration overreached, then they should work with congress in drafting legislation to update the law.

She furthered her stance on trans people from 2019, one example:

After that she released a blog post trying to justify it further, bringing up admittedly horrible things that happened to her.

It got so bad, Harry Potter actors from Radcliffe to Redmayne all admitted to not seeing eye to eye with her on the matter.

And worse (as in this was really uncalled for, and I have MAJOR problems with Rowling right now), The Sun thought it was smart to have her abuser, her first husband on the front page. Making the situation even more f***ed up!

Ok my dude, now you lost all credibility haha.

And I am not just complaining about Trump, I was asking if he is doing it intentionally. Whether it is his goal to just go all-out and alienate as many people as possible, and hope it drives everyone else in his direction.

Hmmmm, yeah that's pretty bad.

I think she is a decent person, I just think she got some pushback on her original statement so long ago, and went in the wrong direction (defensive) with her response.

He's trying to shore up his support with his evangelical base. Seems rather obvious.

@Sevenizz: Trump defense force is here. Adding nothing as usual.

@mrbojangles25: He’s trying to bolster support from those religious groups that cannot accept homosexuality.

Trump had already banned transsexuals from joining the military.

Regarding chromosomes, women are XX and men XY, but not always! Due to a mutation people with a penis could be XX and people with a set of XY chromosomes could have a vagina.

Also there is a difference between biological gender and gender identity.

Complex stuff, a good President definitely should be more considerate to this complex and little understood matter of gender identity.

But hey, this is Donald Trump! He practically takes every chance to mess up.

Do you really expect intelligent policy from a man that suggests injecting bleach into your lungs? Or shoving a powerful light under the skin?

You did not just say "we're taking away basic rights to protect people", did you?

This guy just tries to be a monster at every opportunity. Just another day in Trumpland.

They don't even have anything good to say about Trump. It's never "Trump is right", always "You're not right".

I think he did, which is very "nanny state" of him :P Gotta save the people from themselves!

Wonder if he is turning into one of those liberal commies.

That's the thing....is he trying? Is this strategy? Or is this just the animal that Trump is and it comes naturally to him?

Another dumb move by Trump.

I agree that medicine should be apolitical and acultural.

However, considering the hormonal changes, a physician should look into how the CURRENT state of a person, and apply medicine based on that. A transgender who is just satisfied wearing clothing of the opposite sex and being referred to as pronouns of the opposite sex may end up being treated differently than another who went through HRT and sex reassignment surgeries.

Those Chromosomes, people love bringing up, mean a lot less than people think. The SRY gene (or Testis Determining Factor), pretty much only affects development during fetal stages. As a result, Genotypical Sex is massively overhyped. There are more genes than that, but overall, whether you have that gene or not, will not determine what kind of medicine you should take. The far more important thing is your hormonal composition.

Thank you for the info.

Good to know the chromosomes mean less than we often think they do, though. It makes the whole trans thing and gender reassignment thing a bit easier to comprehend. It still seems crazy (not like in a bad way, just extreme) to me, but less so now.

I should look into it more.

You are honest, so I feel I could go into more detail with you.

I just wanted to correct one thing I said though, there are more genes here at play than the SRY-gene, but it is arguably the most notable one. But overall, healthcare professionals should aim for the best results. Regardless of someone's feelings. So for trans people, it will ultimately vary on a case by case, basis, based on what medical procedures they have gone through, and at what age (post-puberty transitioning transwomen, will be medically different from pre-pubescent transitioning transwomen).

Basically, when it comes to sex, gender and biology, this is my take.

Biologists, at least the ones I read from have divided sex and gender like this.

• Genotypic Sex: XX, XY
• Phenotypic Sex: What you are sporting, secondary sex characteristics, some even put behaviour here.
• Gender: The psychological stuff, cultural stuff.

Most, if not all transgender people know they cannot change their Genotypic Sex, But their Phenotypic Sex can be changed. Changing their secondary sex characteristics has been proven to be really effective, conversion therapies to change Gender, which is what a lot of the people in the anti-transgender crowd wants, is condemned by a lot of medical institutions.

Neurological evidence for the validity of transgender people is everywhere, for instance, even at a young age, activation patterns, follows their ideal gender more than it follow their genotypic sex.

In regards to the autopsies, studies have shown that the neurological composition shows a much stronger similarities to members of the opposite genotypic sex, than normal. This study I am linking is over 10 years old, but it was the one that practically changed my view and understanding of the topic, so I feel like it would be good to link it regardless.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2754583/

Edit: Made it easier to read

@mrbojangles25: If you want a good place to start reading about the complexity of gender development, look up Swyer syndrome. It's by no means comprehensive in itself, but it's a good launching pad into subsidiary subjects into the role chromosomes play in developing the gonads, genitalia, and brain during development. The process of gender development is complex, and any system of sufficient complexity is unlikely to produce solely binary outcomes when repeated billions of times.

Seems obvious and it is not insane. He needs massive turnout and domination of the evangelist vote to win. His message to them is that he is the only one who is willing to stand up to these things that evangelists in general are not comfortable with.

If you are genuinely disgusted with such action on his part and it is an issue you consider important you aren't and weren't going to vote for him in the first place, so that is no loss to him.

And then there are a lot of people in the middle who may not like the action and comments but don't consider that a redline issue in voting.

As far as issue politics go, it is a relatively narrow action that is a big signal to the evangelicals but isn't going to alienate people who might vote for him. In the whole social justice arena this is small potatoes for most.

Yeah you both are right about gaining votes, but are the evangelicals really an unknown? They generally vote Republican as far as I know.

Still, and shame on me, I guess I just keep being shocked by what a terrible person Trump is. Trans people make up, what? A fraction of a percent of the population? Just cover them and assist them and leave them alone, they're not worth making into an issue.

@mrbojangles25: You're underestimating what terrible people evangelicals are.

@mattbbpl: From what I can gather about these people, from my experiences with them, they very much seem to love power structures, even those that are designed to put people down, rather than those meant to protect property. I never understood the appeal of policy designed to put people down. I was married to an evangelical in FF14, and most of her ideas completely baffled me.

I took offense to an oppressive caste system in india, she said it was fine, becuase it was tradition.
She took offense to me making a tall, muscular woman, to the point of crying irl. And I don't even...

Ideas, that are solely designed to put people down, are not ideas worth defending. There is no defense for caste systems, anti-LGBT systems, sexist systems, ect.

It's either intentional, or exceptionally clueless. During pride month? On the anniversary of the club massacre? You have to be incredibly insensitive or an absolute dunce to not know or care about how it will come off. In Trump's case, both I imagine, as I don't think he's capable of empathy.

But man, this new Supreme Court ruling is like a breath of much needed air. I'm so fucking tired of the constant stream of depressing news daily: antagonistic and combative rhetoric, increasing (and encouraged) division, petty partisan bickering, rising racial tensions, the virus, riots, stripping environmental protections, creating animosity between our allies, building xenophobic walls, demonizing people, and on and on and on.

Finally some great news. It's wonderful to finally feel good about something again that the country has done and that holds up our values. I'm incredibly happy for the LGBT community right now as they've been under an onslaught these past three and a half years. It's about time that our country shines bright to break through the never-ending fog of Trump.

Yeah but the SRY gene has a knock on effect, which is why people bring it up. To say it only effects development during fetal stages is like saying. "I didn't kill you, the bullet did." When you shoot someone.

Side Question: What do you think about the other genders? Or do you think it's still 2?

That is completely irrelevant to this topic.

When medical practitioners consider what medical practices to apply, they don't care about the SRY gene, Hormonal balances, and biological make up, are far more important than a certain gene. There are some cases where genetics, is factored into medicine, but this is not one of them. Certain genes can predict how much warfarin a person can take. But as far as the SRY gene is concerned, I cannot think of anything where it has that predictive power, physicians from my knowledge, are better off with other indicators.

Gender is a pretty cultural/social thing (as opposed to the much more biologically rooted sex), so it ultimately varies from culture to culture. No idea why you brought this up though, since transgender has nothing to do with how many genders there are. Are you thinking of Non-binary people?

Honestly just trying to wrap my head, where does it really stand biologically. You brought it up though

Basically the general concensus among biologists in relevant fields is that Sex and Gender are divided into 3 categories, Genotypic, Phenotypic, and Gender. In the culture I live in, we only have 2 genders. Non Binary people are a thing, but bald isn't a hair colour.