Utah Gov’t Leaned So Hard Into Confirmation Bias That Its Transphobic Snitch Form Became A Playground For Trolls

from the and-yet-no-one-learned-anything-from-this-experience dept

This is the sort of dumb shit you do when you feel the only people who will bother responding to your hateful dog whistle are a bunch of dogs (with valid voting registration!) that constantly have one ear cocked towards their master’s voice.

You leave a web form for comments almost completely unsecured and pretty much completely exploitable by people who think you and the people you’re whistling towards are a bunch of hateful fuckheads. Details here are provided by ex-Motherboard/Vice journalist Samantha Cole at 404 Media, an entity that definitely deserves plenty of love and monetary support.

Utah set up an online form for people to accuse other citizens and public establishments of violating the state’s recently-enacted transphobic “bathroom bill.” The submission form is being flooded with memes and troll comments, and the auditor also left the submissions database open to the public—without a password, authentication, or any other protections that would keep anyone from viewing other people’s submissions. 

You just can’t do this sort of thing. Not now. Not even a decade ago.

It’s not as though the internet is still just a plaything for people with hundreds to spend on dial-up connections every month. For the most part, it’s as common as tap water (and, like tap water, its quality and supply vary greatly from location to location). No government would allow anyone to dump whatever they want into the water supply. But when it comes to the internet, governments often still cling to a more utopian view of online activity where it’s assumed everything will turn out alright, even if no one makes any efforts to help ensure this outcome.

They continue to cling to this view even though the history of the internet is filled with anecdotal evidence that suggests an extreme amount of care and caution is required when opening up the complaint lines to the internet in general — everything from people suggesting “Hitler did nothing wrong” for a new Mountain Dew flavor to most of 4chan organizing to get moot (the creator of the site) voted in as “Man of the Year” at Time Magazine’s website.

This is the sort of hubris that ignores the history of the internet in favor of legislators’ subjective views of their wisdom and influence. And, like most people on the planet, Utah government officials tend to think they’re smarter than the rest of the world, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Utah’s legislators love the people who love their bigoted shtick, but they’re blessed with far more confidence than competence.

This “hotline” (as it were) was set up to give pro-hate legislators ammo for more hateful legislation by giving people, who thought they might have seen a non-cis enter a restroom, a place to confirm the biases of hate-filled legislators. The tip line was the follow-up effort of state lawmakers who helped enact a law requiring the state auditor to field complaints from bigots with axes to grind (and the free time to grind them) and report back to the legislature about any perceived restroom violations.

But that didn’t work out because state legislators were so sure only their own would respond. Once the tip line information was spread throughout the internet, it became a playground for people opposed to laws like these to fill the internet in-box with literally anything but confirmations of anti-LGBTQ bias.

The form link has been posted to Twitter, and people have repeatedly posted screenshots of themselves uploading memes. In the database, those included photos of Barry Wood, characters from Bee Movie, and Shutterstock images of bull testicles.

Twitter users have also found a link to the database that the form is connected to, which is hosted on a public Google cloud console bucket that as of Thursday, required no authentication to view. I tested the form, and found that my submission—a photo of the yelling table cat meme—appeared instantly in the Google Console bucket. The submission form offers anonymity with the option for the state auditor to contact submitters for more details. I haven’t seen names and contact information shared in the database, but comments and image attachments were easily viewable.

The first problem is the state government said, “Just do it live. We’ll fix it in post.” And that’s always a problem when the government runs a tip line. Those wanting to hear what they want to hear will just discard the things they don’t want to hear and claim the constituency fully supports whatever hatred they’re trying to push.

The other problem is the assumption that only like-minded people would bother responding to this sort of narrowly focused tip line. When you make that assumption, you do incredibly stupid things — like not bothering to make any attempt to verify the humanity of those filling out the form… or, in this case, not bothering to secure the virtual complaint box or the personal information of those making these submissions.

As 404 Media points out, the auditor’s office decided it might be a good idea to require ID authentication for those seeking to access the contents of the online complaint box. It’s too little and way too late.

It probably won’t matter. You can’t win with hateful government employees like these. The legislators who passed a shitty law and added an unsecured web form as a chaser won’t learn anything from this experience. If the tip line had been flooded with tips confirming legislators’ (illegitimate) fears that trans individuals are using the “wrong” (wtf) bathrooms in public spaces, these lawmakers would have presented this as evidence the law was needed. Now that it’s been flooded with cat memes and bull testicles, the same legislators will probably spin this as either a leftist ploy to de-legitimize its important restroom enforcement efforts or as a definitive demonstration about why it’s always a waste of time to bother asking the governed what they think about anything.

No matter how they spin it, we’ll know the truth: legislators were so sure only people with the same narrow minds as themselves would be bothered to respond so they never even attempted to implement even the most basic of efforts related to security or veracity. That’s the sort of thing that only happens when you’re so blinded by ideology you’re unable to see even the most predictable of results.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Utah Gov’t Leaned So Hard Into Confirmation Bias That Its Transphobic Snitch Form Became A Playground For Trolls”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
91 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

So, how would you describe the Satanic Temple?

A civil rights movement posing as a pseudo-religion grifting on the ill-will of religious conservatives, hoodwinking only-nominally secular governments into endorsing a logical pro-tolerance stance?

I mean, you’d be largely right there. But I think you’re several points off from true regarding transphobia.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The litmus test question isn’t What Is a Woman? (we all know the answer); it’s What Is a “Trans” Person? (no one knows the answer).

And perhaps law should stick to official recognition of categories that are factually, objectively real, definable, & in need of legal protection.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

If “gender identity” is a valid scientific theory, why is it “LGBTQ+” activists who come into schools to “train” staff & students?

Conversely, if GI is a civil right to express your inner authentic self regardless of sex, why is medical technology needed to concretize a civil right?

(Answers: GI isn’t valid science, civil rights, or medicine — it’s a set of illogical & counterfactual spiritual, metaphysical tenets pushed by cultish influencers & spread as culture-bound syndromes.)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

If “gender identity” is a valid scientific theory, why is it “LGBTQ+” activists who come into schools to “train” staff & students?

Because queer people have actual lived experience with being queer. What you’re implying is akin to asking why Black people are invited to schools to talk about anti-Black racism.

if GI is a civil right to express your inner authentic self regardless of sex, why is medical technology needed to concretize a civil right?

Because a person has the right to choose how they express their gender, and medical treatment for gender reassignment/transition is one way of doing that. What right do you have to deny any trans person their right to undergo that treatment?

it’s a set of illogical & counterfactual spiritual, metaphysical tenets pushed by cultish influencers

So “transgenderism” is a religion? Cool, the First Amendment would actually protect it, then.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

So “transgenderism” is a religion? Cool, the First Amendment would actually protect it, then.

Christian creationists succeeded for a while in influencing ostensibly secular, public institutions (mostly schools) to teach faith as fact. What was at stake were core principles; the same principles are at stake w/ public institutions subscribing to gender identity ideology — a set of faith-based tenets not grounded in logic or reason that (not coincidentally) also takes a dim view of women’s abilities, roles, and overall equality in value, to men.

What’s worse about mandatory genderism than mandatory creationism, is believing the earth is 6,000 years old or that humans were created out of whole cloth rather than evolved from other organisms, is those beliefs don’t entail devastating repercussions for women, gays & lesbians, & youth encouraged to medically damage their bodies to practice their faith.

The core principles at stake in objecting to creationism or genderism being taught in public schools include: the human right of children to an education based in knowledge not indoctrination into faith; parents, not the government, have the right to influence their own kids in matters of faith; academic freedom (educators who know creationism doesn’t comport w/ the facts & evidence amassed in centuries of knowledge accrued through the scientific method have the right to teach fact not faith); separation of church & state (we forbid the government from establishing or enforcing an official faith); pluralism & liberalism in the Enlightenment vein that recognizes every individual’s right (without government coercion) to self-determination & self-expression, to believe and not believe in unprovable metaphysical narratives.

The main reason why the parallel (but greater harm) of genderism to creationism isn’t perceived by as many people (so far), is that gender identity ideology doesn’t present itself as a matter of faith — it’s a wolf of spirituality in sheep’s clothing of false civil rights plus pseudo-science. For people to realize the gender emperor is naked will require stripping the sartorial covers of bad science & insultingly parasitical civil rights, exposing just a weird mysticism about “gender souls” that needs to be relegated to the same status as Scientology or New Ageism.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

If that were true, it would be a pretty solid argument against all organized religions.

Why is it so hard for some people to accept both “god made them male and female” and “gender and sex are both on a spectrum and not the same one”, and yet they have no issues accepting both creation stories in Genesis, nor “love those who hate/persecute you, love and do not hate” and “hate the trans people?”

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Why is it so hard for some people to accept both “god made them male and female” and “gender and sex are both on a spectrum and not the same one”, and yet they have no issues accepting both creation stories in Genesis, nor “love those who hate/persecute you, love and do not hate” and “hate the trans people?”

I would make the argument that the [mostly] Christian interpretation of Genesis as God making a man Adam and Eve coming out of male Adam’s rib is a misinterpretation of Genesis. According to the Talmud, there are 8 genders, and one of them is Androgynos, or both male and female, and this was Adam’s original form and then god split them into male Adam and female Eve.

So if Genesis didn’t make any sense, it’s because Christians have been reading it wrong!

Check this out for more: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-eight-genders-in-the-talmud/

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Yup; I agree 100%. That’s what happens when you try to make something mean something that aligns with what you already believe, instead of trying to understand what was written in context.

But someone has to be pretty intentional about the misinterpretation at some point for all this to work, even if everyone who follows after has just left their brain at the door to follow the groupthink because it’s easier than working it all out for themselves.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 If 'trans people exist' is a threat to your god... that god's pretty pathetic.

It always amuses me when some religious nutter screams about how ‘[Insert thing they hate here] is trying to destroy/dethrone god!’ as it’s a massive own-goal that portrays their god as some pathetic being that can be overthrown/destroyed by some paltry material thing like ‘gay/trans people exist’ or ‘science disagrees with their holy book of choice’.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Yeah, I find it downright bizarre just how casually the bigots throw out way worse heresies without being called out. They are way worse than the “implicit violation” stretched logic they accuse trans people of by going statements never given as a command. Jesus killed a fig tree. Does that mean planting a fig tree is sinful and against god?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

If males who DON’T claim to be women can be excluded from female spaces for accepted reasons, yet gender-faith men are admitted, the system is giving every single man veto power over the existence of safeguarding & human rights of dignity & equal opportunities for women.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
BernardoVerda (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Excuse me -- your cultural miopia is showing

The absolute insistence on a “by definition” existence of precisely and only two sexes tightly coupled to precisely and only two corresponding genders, is a modern “Western” conceit.

For example, in medieval times the Church was known to recognize and bless same-sex unions. In the Jewish Talmudic legal and scholastic) tradition (extending even further back than Christianity’s very existence) there is explicit acknowledgement of at least eight different sexes and genders, and how this existence affected the religious and legal obligations relating to these individuals.

Perhaps what you are dismissing as some sort of recent, weird religious or psychological, ideologically-based phenomenon, is merely the inevitable acknowledgement of actual, varying human characteristics, that in our culture we have ignored until now, simply because it didn’t fit our preconceptions of “how the world is” — or “how the world should be“.

It’s not acknowledging observable reality, but rather ignoring aspects of reality that we disapprove of, that deserves to be dismissed as religious doctrine disguised as pseudoscience. It turns out that the doctrine of “Only two sexes, and only two genders” is the actual faith-based “Emperor with no clothes” in this analogy.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

“GI isn’t valid science, civil rights, or medicine…”

I’m pretty sure the Gastro-Intestional tract is both real and both a part of science and medicine. Though I do agree there there’s no reason for a GI Tract Bill Of Rights outside the context of a Taco Bell bathroom.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

If “gender identity” is a valid scientific theory, why is it “LGBTQ+” activists who come into schools to “train” staff & students?

For the same reason autistic people come to schools to help train staff and students to understand autism, and why disabled people come to schools to help train staff and students to understand the needs of disabled people: They understand best what it’s like to live with those conditions.

Also, people like you call doctors who help transgender people transition “LGBTQ+ activists”, anyways, so it’s basically because anyone who would be able to train them is an activist by definition.

Conversely, if GI is a civil right to express your inner authentic self regardless of sex, why is medical technology needed to concretize a civil right?

It has been for a long time. The right to not die of curable illnesses or treatable injuries is a civil right, too, and that definitionally requires medical technology. I can also say that, thanks to my quadruple-whammy of autism, ADHD, anxiety, and depression, I require medical technology in order to express my authentic self to the extent of “a person capable of any level of communication and external awareness”.

Also, the civil rights in question here are the right to use available medical technology as doctors are able and willing and is ethical and the right to be treated equally to others regardless of conditions you have no real control over, not just being your authentic self.

Answers: GI isn’t valid science, civil rights, or medicine — it’s a set of illogical & counterfactual spiritual, metaphysical tenets pushed by cultish influencers & spread as culture-bound syndromes.)

There’s nothing spiritual or metaphysical about it. It’s just that their brains are wired for a body that they don’t have, which throws off their proprioception (the sense that lets you know what your body feels like, what parts are present, and where each part is relative to each other; it’s also responsible for “phantom limb” syndrome) and, in some cases, causes severe discomfort.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

perhaps law should stick to official recognition of categories that are factually, objectively real, definable, & in need of legal protection

Trans people are objectively real and in need of legal protection, given that conservative legislators are trying to outlaw the public existence of transgender people piece by piece, from “bathroom bills” to attacks on transgender healthcare. Trans people are people despite how they don’t fit neatly into the social construct of gender that lots of people want to be as simple as “man has penis, woman has vagina”.

Side note: Anti-trans bigots get really pissed off at the phrase “pregnant people”. I guess they don’t like the idea of pregnant women being considered “people”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

All “transgender women” are men self-identifying as women. There’s no therapist letter, fraudulent government ID, injection, pill, patch, or surgery, that converts a man into any type of woman; “transgender woman” always means self-identified: a woman by gender-faith, not fact.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I’m curious: if you consider “transgender women” to all be “men self-identifying as women,” do you consider all “transgender men” to all be “women self-identifying as a man?”

If you do, why did you call out one without the other? Is there something more abhorrently wrong to you about one than the other?

And is there some reason that you insist on equating gender and sex? It’s something easy to do in English, but in a conversation where others are taking the two as being very different things, it seems like an odd place to start without clarification.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

why did you call out one without the other? Is there something more abhorrently wrong to you about one than the other?

I’d wager that exclusion was done for much the same reason that a lot of anti-gay rhetoric focuses on gay men to the exclusion of gay women: It’s about an obsession with who has penises and how people with penises use that appendage. See also: The idea that teenage boys who get raped by older women are “lucky” while teenage girls who get raped by older men are “victims”.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I would say the cishet male gaze has something to do with their queerphobia specifically targeting gay men and trans women. Cishet men fear Gay men because they fear being treated like they treat women, they fear trans women because they couldn’t live with themselves if the hot girl they were attracted to has a penis, and the idea that teenage boys who get raped by older women are “lucky” is because they fantasized about that as kids.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I’d wager that exclusion was done for much the same reason that a lot of anti-gay rhetoric focuses on gay men to the exclusion of gay women: there is no such thing as a gay woman. Homosexual women are lesbians, and calling them gay does nothing except linguistically erase the existence of many gay trans men. A very peculiar thing to do if one is not anti-trans.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

What even is this comment?

“Gay women existing erases gay trans men”

“Also gay women don’t exist”

Very coherent position you have there. Obviously, identities aren’t erased by other identities existing; identities are erased by claims like “there is no such thing as a [insert identity here]”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Right, just like the use of the term ‘learning disabilities’ about people with intellectual disabilities didn’t lead to the linguistic erasure of people with learning disabilities such as dyslexia, nonverbal learning disabilities, etc. Thanks for telling us you’re transphobic, homophobic, and ableist.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I’m curious: if you consider “transgender women” to all be “men self-identifying as women,” do you consider all “transgender men” to all be “women self-identifying as a man?”

Age-old, mundane traditional sexism is the core of gender identity ideology — examining the history of PREA, the US federal law (Prison Rape Elimination Act) from 2003 aiming to curb sexual violence in prisons AND carving out special rights for “transgender” prisoners, you can feel the recoiling of male politicians repelled by male-on-male sex, & their disdain for men who can’t cut it as “real men” so (shrug) they might as well be women.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

All “transgender women” are men self-identifying as women.

No. They were registered as male at birth, but their brains are wired such that their proprioception expects a female body that isn’t present, and so it throws up the same sort of discomfort (aside from pain) that happens when something is seriously wrong with your body, like a missing arm or a hyper-extended knee or something.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Actually, woman isn’t a sex class, it’s an identity class. Female is the sex class, and is a gender class too. That latter classification is how AMAB people can be female as well as women (and girls) despite all your denials.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Men can’t be women

Still a strawman. Claiming trans women are women is not claiming that men can be women unless you believe that trans women are men. I don’t. I don’t believe they were ever men, just male, which is not the same thing.

& pretending they can makes it logically impossible to recognize women as a sex class.

“Women” is a gender class; “female” is a sex class. And no, it doesn’t. That it doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t make it logically impossible.

At any rate, none of this addresses anything I said. This is a non sequitur.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

You most certainly have the confidence, defensiveness, and ability of a mediocre, middle aged, white man, stuck in the closet.

Insisting that being female is a matter of self-identity is insulting to everyone’s intelligence (human sexual dimorphism is one of the most universally perceived facts, no formal education needed) & esp to women (we deal with, not choose, the genetic dice roll of being female).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Insisting that being female is a matter of self-identity […]

No one said that. We’re talking about being a woman, and that does appear to be a matter of self-identity for practical purposes. Technically, it has to do with neurology, specifically proprioception, but that’s difficult to test while a person is still alive.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Nope; it is proprioception.

Basically, there is a mismatch between the brain’s mental map of the body and the actual physical state of the body, similar to phantom limb. This is called proprioceptive dissonance, and it can be (though is not necessarily) extremely uncomfortable, physically and/or mentally.

Specifically for trans people with this, each of their brains’ mental map corresponds with a person of the opposite sex than their bodies. This can actually be determined via tests that can be performed during an autopsy by comparing the parts of the brain responsible for proprioception in their brains with those of cisgender people.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The litmus test question isn’t What Is a Woman? (we all know the answer); it’s What Is a “Trans” Person? (no one knows the answer).

According to an online dictionary, it’s “a person whose gender identity does not correspond with the sex registered for them at birth.” It’s really not that hard to find this out, and it’s more-or-less exactly how I would have defined it.

And perhaps law should stick to official recognition of categories that are factually, objectively real, definable, & in need of legal protection.

Gender identity is every bit as factually, objectively real and definable as race, if not more-so given the fact that race doesn’t technically exist according to studies but studies have shown that gender identity is based on a real neurological phenomenon.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Quite frankly, it sounds like you shouldn’t be defining anything given you listed 3 things that very much describe the people that are enacting Transphobia rather than Trans people themselves.

Granted, it seems like you don’t understand the concept of definition. You point blank named a classification (the whole point of which is to clarify) for people and then said it was not definable.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

B person here. You can fuck all the way off.

If the mandate is “Make exceptions to single-sex spaces to honor gender identities” then the fight isn’t about whether or not men deserve exceptions — it’s about whether women deserve separate spaces at all. When it comes to women-only spaces, exception = evisceration.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

If the mandate is “Make exceptions to single-sex spaces to honor gender identities” then the fight isn’t about whether or not men deserve exceptions — it’s about whether women deserve separate spaces at all. When it comes to women-only spaces, exception = evisceration.

I am unconvinced that restrooms have any reason to be single-sex spaces, but also, you’re wrong. There is zero evidence that your claim has any truth to it whatsoever.

Notably, most Western countries have unisex public restrooms, and they have not encountered any problems with that.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Notably, most Western countries have unisex public restrooms, and they have not encountered any problems…

One of those “Western countries” includes the US, telling by my experiences in some concert venues in NYC. Also, the Lower Manhattan Alamo Drafthouse movie theater has segregated public bathrooms, but they’re segregated by function: one bathroom for urinals, and the other for commodes (another name for stalls). Nobody has any problem there. People just accept it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

And I’ve known a few trans people in my time.

Yes, there’s always at least one asshole in any given social group/people group, but denying people the right to express themselves is not a path you want to walk on.

Unless all this is just a mask for transphobia, queerphobia, racism and eventually, anti-Semitism.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

And I’ve known a few trans people in my time.

A claim to be something is either an opinion (not falsifiable but also can’t mandate others hold the same opinion), or it’s a factual claim subject to being proved true/false.

“I Identify As” isn’t a magic incantation to covert an opinion into a fact nor make a false claim true.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Sometimes it’s the most practical way to determine the truth. It’s how we determine someone’s religion, after all. It’s not necessarily the most accurate way, but it can be the most pragmatic and isn’t terribly invasive or dangerous to perform. It’s also quick and easy.

That said, if you want an underlying fact for gender identity, it’d be proprioception. It’s basically the mental map of your body your brain has. It’s how you know where your hand is relative to the rest of your body without looking at it, and it’s what causes “phantom limb” syndrome as well as (partially) the discomfort teens have over the changes to their bodies during puberty. For trans women, their brains are wired so their mental map is for a woman’s body, and for trans men, their brains are wired so their mental map is for a man’s body. Since that isn’t what they are born with, their proprioception is unaligned with their body from birth, sometimes so strongly that it is severely, physically and emotionally uncomfortable for them unless they go through some level of medical transitioning, though not necessarily, and even if so, it doesn’t always require surgery.

The problem is that this is pretty difficult to objectively determine without relying on psychology or the person’s statement of self-identity while they’re still alive. It can be determined fairly objectively through an autopsy, though; that just doesn’t help us much with dealing with people who are still alive. As such, for most people in most situations, you’re probably better off just taking their word for it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Sir this is an Arbys.

Once “gender identity” infects a discrimination law, nothing based on sex can remain: if a woman claims sex discrimination over some policy, it’s a claim from a person who “identifies as female.” Everyone is forced to act w/in a gender ideology framework; factual sex disappears.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Not at all, and I have no idea why you would think that. It just doesn’t matter in most social contexts, but then it really shouldn’t, anyways. It should only matter to physicians, psychiatrists, scientific researchers, or someone you’re physically or romantically close to; maybe a few others (sports or prisons, maybe), but that’s about it. It shouldn’t matter what your physical sex is in the vast majority of scenarios in public spaces or for employment.

Also, outside of medical situations or matters of physical prowess, maybe, there really isn’t any time where discrimination based on gender identity isn’t okay where discrimination based on physical sex should be okay.

Your slippery slope has no logical or factual basis for it. It’s pure fearmongering based on nothing more than your own personal speculation.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

One aside, concerning several cases discussed this week: The arguments underline a basic difference between how liberals and conservatives think: Liberals are more grounded in reality. Again and again, the liberal justices referenced things that are actually happening, while the conservative justices were far more interested in imagining scenarios that could happen, but are highly unlikely. …

Something similar happened in the Court’s discussion of how the federal EMTALA law conflicted with Idaho’s abortion law. Conservative justices wanted to talk about bizarre hypotheticals in which deceitful women could lie about their suicidal impulses in order to get late-term abortions. Liberals wanted to talk about actual cases in which women with problem pregnancies have to wait until they are near death to get care.

You can see it across the board: Men might claim to be women to get into your daughter’s bathroom. Has that ever happened? Well, maybe not, but it could. Librarians could be grooming your children for pedophilia. Can you name one? Transwomen might drive “real” women out of women’s sports. Well, we just saw the NCAA basketball tournament. Is that happening? On and on.

(Source)

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 'I was wrong, let me change that' vs 'I CANNOT be wrong, so reality is'

When a person’s beliefs, positions or statements clash with reality they are faced with one of two options, and which one they take tells you a lot about the sort of person they are:

1) Honesty and humility, where they admit that according to the facts available they were wrong and change their beliefs, positions or claims to align with the current available evidence.

Or…

2) Dishonesty and egotism, where they insist that reality is wrong since their beliefs, position or claims cannot be incorrect, and if the facts don’t currently support them they either lie and make up ‘evidence’ to support them and/or claim that it’s only a matter of time until evidence is presented that does, and until that point they’ll assert that they’re right anyway.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Malicious Compliance

I think it is just as likely:

At some level, this becomes an implementation issue. That is, some programmer, some website developer gets tasked to create “a tip line for (something reprehensible)”. They’re given some vague specifications by someone who doesn’t know squat about making a website (that’s why they hire geeks, right?).

Thing is, programmers are, fairly often, liberal, tolerant beings. “Make a website for reporting things for intolerant folks?” Sure thing, boss. Let me make sure that everyone can submit crap to you. After all, I can point to the contract that says that everything I implemented, half-arsed or otherwise, is compliant. You have problems with what you got out of it? They’re your problems, not mine.

Now, if you wanted a secure website, you would have said this in the contract…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

That’s an interesting claim. In my experience, the number of trans women in software development is just slightly higher than trans women in the general population.

And it’s possible that the difference is just because it’s easier to be outspoken about who you are when you don’t have to physically interact with a bunch of people who are upset with the entire concept that you exist.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Eh, belief in LDS shows lack of IQ, whereas belief in (fill in the blank: a religion) shows something else? I think you overgeneralize. Belief in a particular religion is not a good metric for IQ, in my experience.

As far as being run by bigots goes, you’re not wrong. But it may also be that the politicians stumping for these causes are playing to what they think their base is, to ensure their next election rather than to create meaningful legislation.

And yeah, this is only after things like their social media bills came past. So there are a number of other states you could add, if you just get past “is bigoted” as your criterion. Louisiana. Wisconsin. Ohio (against their voters, yet!). Stupid legislation knows few bounds.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Utah joins Florida and Texas as a state run by bigots. This episode clearly shows the IQ of these idiots. Although, to be fair, their belief in LDS showed their lack of IQ already.

I’d disagree with all points.

  1. Utah was already a state run by bigots. They’re just starting to say the quiet parts out loud now that it’s considered socially acceptable again.
  2. Intelligence is a totally separate thing from sense or wisdom. I’m not claiming they have a lot of any of those, but let’s not conflate them here.
  3. People believe in collective things so they don’t have to do all the mental work for themselves. In general, it’s a winning technique for humans. But when it’s gamed by some charismatic individual, you can end up with a lot of otherwise intelligent individuals doing and saying things that when examined in isolation would be considered idiotic. And this isn’t limited to people believing in a particular religion — Half of all people who believe in ANYTHING are below average; the question is really more one of what sort of person is empowered by the belief.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

illegal aliens

We’re having problems here with illegal space aliens showing up in our country and attempting to use the rest rooms. That’s a problem as there are four or five genders on some of these planets, which means longer lineups for the facilities once these creatures show up here.

Just had to post that to the “tip line” website.

While I’m at it, I just found this snitch line to report illegal aliens, run by some nutcase trying to make cheap political points on immigration. I think I shall have to report my UFO sightings there too.

Damned foreigners and their flying saucers have no place in this God-fearing nation! America uber alles!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...