Trump details plan to ban gender-affirming care for minors and adults - eviltoast
  • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    110
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Trump’s policy agenda includes a Congressional bill to define government-recognized genders strictly as male and female, as assigned at birth.

    I have to wonder what is going to happen when the law runs headlong into science here. Because sure, this might primarily affect trans-folk, but they aren’t the only ones who defy strict binary gender.

    • Carnelian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      86
      ·
      2 days ago

      I believe their official stance is simply that any “expert who thinks they know better than the duly elected president” will be fired or ignored

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      2 days ago

      Just have to look at climate science for an example of science taking a backseat to political will.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      2 days ago

      I have to wonder what is going to happen when the law runs headlong into science here.

      They’ll double down even harder like the failed war on drugs, despite the damage it’s causing. As long as conservatives “feel” like something is the correct solution, it’s the right way to go, all evidence, studies, and science be damned.

    • Bookmeat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Science?? Have you seen the abortion debate? There are vegetables classified as fruit and other horrors on the law books. Science got nothing to do with it.

      • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        So there is a colloquial definition of fruit/veg and a scientific definition. You have a point here, but have there been any court cases that hinged on these laws? And did they hinge in a way that the scientific definition was paramount?

        So many people wanting to argue that Republicans don’t care about science, but I don’t disagree with that. I know they don’t. But eventually there are going to be court cases that adjudicate whether a person is legally a man or a woman, and I’m just really curious what the outcome of those cases will be when the law flies in the face of fact.

        Did you ever read about the time someone tried to legislate that the value of pi is 3.2? It was saved by the Indiana Senate not falling for that bullshit. Unfortunately, there will be no last-minute rescue in this case. I know it’s going to be a clusterfuck. But I also wonder how judges are going to react to people who legitimately do not match the definition of male or female.

        This attempt to discriminate against trans-folk will inevitably bump up against ambiguity which a simple binary construct cannot address.

      • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I don’t, but when you get to a courtroom, where there are standards of evidence, a judge is going to have to make interpretations that don’t match up with the law.

        Hell what happens when there is a typo on a birth certificate? If I’m assigned female at birth and am not genetically nor biologically female, what then? I just have to wait five times as long in bathroom lines? Does the government get to track my menstruation?

        All of Trumpists’ dreams of simplicity are defeated by asking just the most obvious questions. Imagine if I were smart enough to ask good questions.

        • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          Good news is, at least they’re safe from abortion. They have to wait until after they are born to punish them for existing.