Thread: You will be shocked to learn that the claim from the NYT that using this definition for sex would make transgendered people legally non-existent is either extremely dishonest or based completely in ignorance.
What is going on here? Title lX protections against sex-based discrimination were originally drafted to apply in a way that would fit the proposed definition. The Obama administration expanded the definition to have it also prohibit discrimination based on sexual identity.
The Trump administration is allegedly proposing to essentially undo the expanded definition applied under the Obama administration.
Using the NYT logic, transgendered people were legally non-existent before 2010 then? That's obviously nonsense.
Using the NYT logic, transgendered people were legally non-existent before 2010 then? That's obviously nonsense.
There were no special title IX protections specifically for sexual identity, but someone who identified as transgendered had the same rights as everyone else.
Now there are obviously serious and legit questions here on what are the right level of protections for sexual identity and whether it should warrant additional protections under the law, but that definition of sex in no way makes anyone legally non-existent.
P.S. The Obama administration was warned repeatedly about the dangers of doing everything through executive decree. Now you have a new executive that views the issue differently. If they wanted the changes to be permanent, they should have passed a law.
