So called "anti trans bill"

File: 90485.png (2MB, 1534x1436px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1534x1436px

>>8594383
What about cases in schools where the student has obviously been presenting for years, has had there name changed and is medically transitioning, yet still gets forced out of using the rest room at their school because "the majority met and didn't agree with it"?

That's what all of the large lawsuits involving restroom use have been surrounding, including the one that just went to the Supreme Court.

>>8594383
>muh marxists
lmao

Two thoughts. Going by genetic sex would open up a big can of worms since most people don't get their chromosomes checked, and you have people with chromosome and other congenital anomalies. Are women with CAIS going to be considered men now?
Second, this only has 5 cosponsors and was only referred to a subcommittee. Unless this actually starts moving it's a big nothing. Lots of dumb bills get introduced and go nowhere.

>Hey i'm a girl now, I'll be changing in the girls locker room" without even attempting to transition or look like the other sex?

nobody does this is going to do this

>>8594383
>>8594397
"Bathroom laws" don't work one way or the other. Anti-hon law will affect cishons too. Pro-hon law will enable perverts.

>>8594383
lol this guy's dumb as fuck. It's like he did a wiki walk for communism and just looked at every term and went, "Uh yeah it would not work because every one is a fascist like me."

Also lol how the fuck is letting everyone be genderqueer or whatever the fuck you're frightened of help the proletariat seize the means of production you dumb fuck? God you sure do like to blame Marx for shit liberals like to do, but newsflash you dumb Ameriburger: Leftists and liberals are radically different things.

>>8594383
>It literally just outlines the fact that sex discrimination laws should have nothing to do with self identification or subjective gender feelings, and this is getting flak.
>The people against this are anti science, they want to re write biology.
I'm of the opinion that laws that discriminate on the basis of sex basically shouldn't exist, or should at least be very rare, only being allowed if each individual one has a clear rational justification for why it should apply to people differently based on their sex. The whole basis of rule of law is that everyone is equal unless noted otherwise, so I would say a law that discriminates on the basis of sex (or any other trait) is illegitimate unless there's a clear and demonstrable reason why that trait is relevant to the situation. A law that says one thing for males, and another thing for females, should not be casually accepted IMHO. It sets a dangerous precedent.

>>8594383
>Thoughts on this, trannys? Do you support the idea that a high schooler should unilaterally be able to tell their staff "Hey i'm a girl now, I'll be changing in the girls locker room" without even attempting to transition or look like the other sex?
The problem with this reasoning is it basically implicitly assumes that sharing a locker room with those not of your sex will be traumatizing, but you should be completely okay with sharing the locker room with those of the same sex, and if it makes you feel uncomfortable or traumatized you don't have a right to complain. I think a better solution would be to look into redesigning locker rooms so they can ensure privacy for everyone, regardless of sex, just like bathrooms do already. Because the issue here is the right to use locker rooms, nobody's actually saying they deserve a fundamental right to make other people see their body if they don't want to. Additionally, the law as written talks about "genetic sex", meaning even if you've transitioned and are completely passable, even if you're intersex and phenotypically female from birth but have a Y chromosome, you'll be considered male under federal law, except for those laws that specifically talk about transition, intersex conditions, or "gender identity". It would be a massive step backwards, basically even if you had your gender legally changed, you would still count as your genetic sex for any laws which do not explicitly make accommodations for things like legal gender and transitioning.

>>8594491
You don't have to be a fascist to acknowledge that class distinctions are innate. People differ in innate ability, and that will create class distinctions absent any other force. Marxism only made sense before the discovery of DNA.

Re: point 3. There are cases of people identifying more strongly with class than with their nation (and I'm using the real definition of "nation" here, I'm not using the word as a synonym for "country"), but only when their nation is essentially secure. MAGA happened because people abandoned class considerations in favour of concern for their nation; something the liberal elites don't grasp because they believe those feelings can be trained out of everyone.

>>8594411
>>8594502
Not the OP or American; but the reason why it's called "Cultural Marxism" is explained IN the OP. If you take any critical theory at a post-secondary level, the fact that critical theory is intellectually rooted in Marxism is freely acknowledged.

Try, I dunno, graduating high school before calling people idiots for using terms that you don't understand.

>>8594383
>I personally think this should be on a case by case basis, at the judgement of the staff of the institution, with input from the people being affected. For example, if a boy says "I'm a girl, I wanna be on the girl's teams and in the girl's locker room", yet has not been on hormones, does not wear female clothes, does not attempt to pass as the other gender at all, he should not be treated as a female, he is, by all signs, a male who identifies as a male, only his claim is saying otherwise.
The problem with it being decided on a "case by case" basis is that without some kind of objective standard, it basically doesn't fix anything - the staff at one school might say even being on HRT for years and completely passable isn't enough to be considered a girl, while the staff elsewhere another might say that someone who just started identifying as female five minutes ago counts as a girl. In that case, you might as well give up any pretense of there even being a federal policy on bathroom laws and just go the full libertarian route, letting every individual place decide their own policy.

And if there is going to be some kind of objective standard, it would have to be based on something like how many months you've been on HRT for, or when you started identifying as the opposite gender. Because there really is no objective way to measure how well someone passes, and even if you try to come up with one, inevitably sooner or later there will be some cis girl that doesn't meet the criteria.

>>8594383
Sex discrimination laws are wrong in principle, so I oppose this regardless of what it says about trannies.

>>8594472
>Pro-hon law will enable perverts.

Not true. Sexual harassment and rape are both already illegal regardless of whether it happens in a bathroom or somewhere else. It also doesn't matter the gender of the offender and the victim. Rape is rape, and rape is illegal. Most bathroom bills were written in the mind to keep non-passing trans women out of the women's bathroom. It doesn't take into account for FtM trans men, or gender nonconforming cis people. Also even the Republicans who wrote or sponsored these bills know they have no effect means of actually enforcing these sort of laws. Literally placing a police officer to do a ID check, DNA check, or genital check to every person who wants to use a public restroom is not only impossible, but also reeks of fascism and totalitarianism. So much for the Republicunts agenda of "muh freedom" and "muh liberty".

>>8594559
>You don't have to be a fascist to acknowledge that class distinctions are innate. People differ in innate ability, and that will create class distinctions absent any other force. Marxism only made sense before the discovery of DNA.
Marxism does not in any way say "lol everyone is equal in every single ability and no one has any innate talents or preferences". And even before DNA was understood, it was known since ancient, or even prehistoric times that ability was hereditary to some extent. Marxism is more about eliminating ARTIFICIAL divisions, which class is an example of. For example, standard capitalism is FAR from meritocratic - yes, invariably some people will succeed due to being more competent, but the fact is, that under capitalism, someone born into wealth will have an advantage over someone of equal natural ability who is born into poverty, due to inheritance, ability to acquire capital and education, and so on. Marxism does not mean treating every individual as an interchangeable resource (although, in practice, Soviet economic planning was known to do exactly that). There can still be leaders, coordinators, and specialists in different professions under Marxism, the main difference from capitalism is that ownership of the means of production derives from continued use of it, and merely owning capital, without applying any labor to it, does not entitle you to a share of the profits.

>>8594472
>only women can be victims
>all men are dangers
kys

>>8594559
>Not the OP or American; but the reason why it's called "Cultural Marxism" is explained IN the OP. If you take any critical theory at a post-secondary level, the fact that critical theory is intellectually rooted in Marxism is freely acknowledged.
Even that post admits that it's as much based in Hegel and Freud as it is in Marx. Really the only fundamental basis to it seems to be Hegel (he was a major influence on Marx, and likely on Freud as well, though I'm not positive), so "Cultural Hegelianism" would probably make more sense, but the whole idea of humans making a conscious effort to "bring about" or "push" the Hegelian dialectic is basically a misunderstanding of Hegel. He basically believed that the change described by the Hegelian dialectic is going to happen whether humans want it to or not.

>Hey, remember those laws we wrote to make it so that trannies can live happy, relatively normal lives? Let's get rid of that entirely because a couple of horny teenagers may potentially abuse it!
Nope, you're right anon! Totally not anti-trans!

>>8594618
Give up on the Marxist crap. I used to buy into that when I was younger but I was stupid. Human nature being what it is there will never be a purely meritocratic system. I'm not even sure you'd want that, because judging merit is often subjective. People can end up getting trapped with no way out if they're a prisoner of the poor judgment of the meritocrats. It's arrogant as hell to think that the leaders, coordinators, and specialists will be immune to the usual self-serving human impulses, or that they'll always make the best decisions, and won't hesitate to correct wrong decisions instead of doubling down on them.
At least with capitalism you can have individual liberty, and poor decisions can quickly lead to bankruptcy. There's no shortage of formerly mighty corporations that went bust due to poor decision making. That's the way things should work. Marxist systems just perpetuate bad decisions because no one wants to take responsibility for screwing up.
Fascist types are no better. We're free individuals, not tools for the advancement of the nation or the race. Let us make our own decisions. Leave us alone.

>>8594677
>Human nature being what it is there will never be a purely meritocratic system.
That doesn't mean we should stop working towards a more meritocratic system.

>I'm not even sure you'd want that, because judging merit is often subjective.
It wouldn't be a human judging merit, "merit" would just mean whether you have the ability to succeed or not. The idea behind a meritocratic system is eliminating unfair advantages, i.e. advantages that one receives that are not related to their own ability. Thus if there was no inheritance, and education and healthcare was equally available to all, that would be a lot more meritocratic than the system we currently have.

>People can end up getting trapped with no way out if they're a prisoner of the poor judgment of the meritocrats.
And? That's just nature. Nature IS the "meritocrat" that's being talked about here. Whether one succeeds or fails will be based on a combination of their own decisions and their own abilities. And yes, some people will simply be born without the ability to succeed, which is why I am in favor of some form of limited welfare system.

>>8594677

>and poor decisions can quickly lead to bankruptcy.
The same is true if capital is collectively owned. It wouldn't be everyone in the country having ownership of the machinery in the factory on the other side of the country, rather it would be only the people that work in that factory that have shared ownership of the machinery. And, if they make poor decisions, if the manager they choose ends up running the factory into the ground, then, well, then the factory will go bankrupt, just like in capitalism. But it would be a shade better than capitalism because under capitalism, the workers have basically no say in how the factory is run - if the management runs the factory in the ground, then the workers suffer, even though they have no responsibility for the failure, never having a say in those decisions in the first place. It's fundamentally the same criticism that the American colonists had with "taxation without representation" - basically, people don't want to suffer the negative consequences of a decision they weren't given a say in.

>>8594734
>eliminating unfair advantages, i.e. advantages that one receives that are not related to their own ability.
Who decides what are unfair advantages? Who judges people's ability? Who decides who the deciders are? Why should we trust them?
>inheritance
What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't someone be able to give money to whomever they want without the state butting in? It's my money and my property (what little of it I have), not the state's or the collective's.
>education and healthcare
And what if the meritocrats perpetuate a bad system and are unwilling to admit they need to change?
I'm not an ancap by any means, and I believe in a safety net and basic services, preferably handled at a more local level, but at the end of the day I prefer individual liberty. I should be free to fail and make bad choices. Also people should be free to implement their ideas without having to get bureaucratic approval for everything they do.

>>8594738
If someone wants to set up an employee ownership system for a factory I have no problem with that, as long as it isn't done by force or by theft. They employees will need to get the money together themselves to buy the factory or leave and start their own.
If I had some money and bought a small building and some machinery with that money to start a small shop, I don't see employees having any right to tell me what to do with my building or my machinery. They're free to start their own business if they want and they can scrape the money together, but I get to decide what to do with my stuff.

>>8594734
>eliminating unfair advantages
Cool, a leftist who isn't in favor of affirmative action!

I've never met a non-sexist leftist before.

>>8594642
in terms of bathroom intrusion yes. only women can be victims
>>8594577
if someone just goes int there to "look around" how would you stop them?
>>8594668
to be fair the amount of people that would abuse this law is greater then people that would benefit from it

>>8594800
>Who decides what are unfair advantages? Who judges people's ability? Who decides who the deciders are? Why should we trust them?
Anything that isn't your own ability is unfair.

>What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't someone be able to give money to whomever they want without the state butting in? It's my money and my property (what little of it I have), not the state's or the collective's.
Because you're giving your children an advantage that doesn't come from their own abilities. It's not meritocratic because it makes them more likely to succeed than others with the same innate ability.

>>8594837
Even leftists who are in favor of affirmative action tend to support it because it acts to counter discriminatory tendencies that already exist in the population. I don't know any who actually think that, in a vacuum, it would be "good" for the government to grant advantages to certain groups over others.

>>8594865
>if someone just goes int there to "look around" how would you stop them?
Not them, but I don't see why there would be any need to stop them as long as they don't engage in harmful behavior. And if they do, then, that's covered under existing laws that simply don't care about gender.

>to be fair the amount of people that would abuse this law is greater then people that would benefit from it
Again, see above. Literally the only thing that could be done by "abusing" the law without outright violating it is using the "wrong" bathroom. Anything harmful would be illegal regardless of gender.

>>8594867
>because it acts to counter discriminatory tendencies that already exist in the population.
Ahhhh, I take it I still haven't met a non-sexist leftist itt?

Also [citation needed] that ti does indeed act that way.

>>8594867
>Anything that isn't your own ability is unfair.
Life isn't fair, and again, how is my ability to be judged, and who will judge it? Who decides what opportunities I get? I'd rather be born poor than have my fate be at the mercy of meritocrats, technocrats, and bureaucrats.

I'd rather have families support their children with their own wealth, instead of having them rely on the taxpayer. Inherited wealth tends to get dispersed over the generations and becomes less of an advantage anyway. The only issue to avoid giving those with money or connections special legal privileges.

>>8594677
Socialism by its nature is libertarian, so I have no idea why you think capitalism -essentially informal, hierarchical competition that develops on top of the real, pure market competition- is any different than your strawman of socialist systems. Socialism doesn't mean absolute market control, and pure communism means zero market control at all; it means private property being abolished and means of production being a shared resource rather than the property of business owners. It wouldn't even necessarily mean that private ownership of production would be prohibited, if anything it would be preferable to have a mixed market economy to encourage public production to compete with private production. Socialism is a basic enforcement of the concept of "being left alone," since it essentially becomes state-enforced anarchism at its purest development.

Market economies have adopted "capitalism" which is essentially meritocracy through collusion and lobbying; whoever has the best subsidies, contracts, and government sponsored, corporate welfare is the winner and the ruler of all things not directly regulated by federal means. Capital, credit, and assets are accumulated not by merit itself but by deception and unfair market behavior, which in turn makes the system one of inverse merit. It is run on the back of illusory success and intangible figures. If you think bankruptcy means the end of sheisters and conmen, you would be completely wrong. All they have to do is ask for a bailout or find a scheme of bankruptcy and repayment that will put them back in a place where they can gain new investors for a new scheme. The only thing that limits this behavior is government. This is the natural development of capitalism, worthless profit from worthless goods and ideas because our level of luxury is high enough to warrant pointless indulgences. Such indulgent products are sold on deception, made by wage slaves in China, and end up damaging the common good.

>>8594906
>The only issue to avoid giving those with money or connections special legal privileges.
It's ironic that you fancy yourself a realist, when this is such a naive statement. Anything not countered by law will be a special advantage for the rich. They don't usually end up losing generational wealth because they know every way to squirrel away assets and put money into tax shelters.

>how is my ability to be judged, and who will judge it? Who decides what opportunities I get? I'd rather be born poor than have my fate be at the mercy of meritocrats, technocrats, and bureaucrats.
You don't realize it, but a favorable meritocracy would be the better alternative, because right now the system is a meritocracy decided by millions and millions of employers and wealthy business owners who are all subject to their own biases and prejudice. They all see themselves as great successes, however a great deal of market success is simply luck. In other words, they survived because they did; they don't often know why or how they got there, and can't really be capable of judging others on their own experiences.

>I'd rather have families support their children with their own wealth, instead of having them rely on the taxpayer.
How does this work when every generation faces a new crisis of monetary survival because of meddling on the part of the oligarchical capitalist rulers? They created a housing bubble and lending crisis with their lobbying and manipulations. You expect us to pay them bailout money, but wouldn't just rather have average citizens assist other average citizens? Is the USA a country made for the benefit of the rich? I certainly believe that we should not be taxed to benefit those who do not benefit the common good...

>>8594901
>Ahhhh, I take it I still haven't met a non-sexist leftist itt?
Is it really sexist to think, correctly or not, that sexism against women exists?

>Also [citation needed] that ti does indeed act that way.
I don't have a citation one way or the other, which is why I don't really have a strong opinion on Affirmative Action. I'm just explaining to you what the conventional reasoning/justification for it is.

>>8594906
>I'd rather be born poor than have my fate be at the mercy of meritocrats, technocrats, and bureaucrats.
But the whole point is it's not a bunch of bureaucrats controlling your life. It's just saying that other people can't go around making your life easier or harder than it would be naturally.

>I'd rather have families support their children with their own wealth, instead of having them rely on the taxpayer. Inherited wealth tends to get dispersed over the generations and becomes less of an advantage anyway
Why, specifically, is inheritance so important to you? If you think having to "rely on the taxpayer" would cause suffering, then wouldn't the suffering be even greater for those who are born into poverty? It would be one thing if those people were suffering due to their own laziness, but we're talking about a situation where people are suffering and at a disadvantage because of things that are entirely outside of their control.

>>8595418
There's a lot of non-market non-capitalistic stuff going on. There was a lot of blame to go around on the housing crisis. The Fed inverted the yield curve - that was the main trigger. There was a lot of lending fraud going on that wasn't being policed. Fannie, Freddie, the FHA, the mortgage interest deduction, government pressure on banks to lend to people with poor credit and other Federal meddling in the housing market were partly to blame. Local zoning restrictions artificially distort housing markets. Of course a lot of the government intervention is a result of lobbying by those who stand to gain. Bailouts are not capitalism or a free market either BTW.
It's a very corrupt and messed up system. I'm a cynic though and feel that it's an expression of human nature. Any socialist system devolves into corruption as well, just with a different elite and a different reward structure.
I don't really care about the rich. The average citizen is better off in the United States than in any socialist country.
I'm not naive enough to believe that we can have a system free of corruption. I do believe that power corrupts. The only solution I see is to shrink government to the bare minimum, and devolve power to the lowest practical level. When there's a high concentration of power, like in Washington DC, corruption naturally follows. The government can focus on policing functions and core services. Policing is critical and often lacking. A lot of executives got away with fraud with the housing crisis.

>>8594559
>Not the OP or American; but the reason why it's called "Cultural Marxism" is explained IN the OP. If you take any critical theory at a post-secondary level, the fact that critical theory is intellectually rooted in Marxism is freely acknowledged.

That's cool and all, but lmfao at you thinking people use critical theory in the year of our lord 2017. Like, dude, the reason why there's such big pushes to make shit more "gay friendly" or "woman friendly" is because the capitalist society you live in wants and craves the disposable income of those groups, and because other capitalists think that diversifying the board of directors of companies will make them seem more human friendly, as if getting a high heel stepping on your face is much better than a boot.

Also, Marx was well aware of the fact that some workers are simply better than others. The objective of Communism is not "Make all equal!" because at the end of the day every worker is different and that's ok. What the end goal was, however, was to banish the idea that fairness is getting paid according to how much you produce and replace it with the idea that fairness is supporting everyone else according to everyone's need. You can read this for a better explanation of this from the man himself.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

>>8595487
>Is it really sexist to think, correctly or not, that sexism against women exists?
Is it sexist to support sexism? Yes.

>I don't really have a strong opinion on Affirmative Action
"not having a strong opinion" on not being sexist is being sexist.

>>8594383
>he is, by all signs, a male who identifies as a male, only his claim is saying otherwise.
ugh, dont be such a bigot.

thats the problem with regressive gender ideology.
it has to pander to everyone with identity issues, and you must accept everyones claim without question.