In far-reaching executive order, Biden redefines 'sex'

Magnanimity

Active Member
Dec 13, 2020
124
94
Atlanta
✟17,238.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I demand that Biden re-define "affluence".

If we're going to start demanding things about the affluent, shouldn't we maybe demand that Biden actually tax the affluent at a reasonable level? The affluent have been able to avoid paying anything approaching a "fair share" for at least 4 decades now...o_O

Also, unlike 'wealth dysphoria,' :tearsofjoy: the APA has determined that gender dysphoria is a real phenomenon. The APA is comprised of folks most of whom have joint MD/PhD degrees, so maybe we ought to listen to them..?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,975.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I read this EO. It is brief. It makes a lot of claims that I think most Christians (and any people of good will) would agree with. "Equal protection under the law" is not a controversial idea to Americans, nor even to most Westerners. It's closer to being obviously-true than controversial, I would think. For example, section 1 of the EO begins with this line, "Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love." I really think that this statement is uncontroversially true to all moderates, conservatives and liberals.

For the sake of transparency, I generally identify with the Left politically (abortion and the refusal to force the rich/corporations to pay more in taxes being the only real hangups I have with the Left).

"The elimination of male and female to something else ?"

I think it would be an expansion beyond binary, not an elimination. Right? It's not an eradication of previously existing gender identities but an expansion beyond to be welcoming and inclusive of those (few) who find themselves outside of the well entrenched gender categories of male and female (e.g., trans, middlesex, etc).

However, even though I'm fairly left of center, I still can't get here: "Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports" IF the administration means by this statement that boys can simply make a simple claim of female gender-identity and thereby compete against females in sports. That, I agree with CNA, is an affront to females. If it becomes a norm where male student athletes who merely "self identify" as female routinely dominate their biological female counterparts in sports, that would be quite regressive, not progressive, as far as I can tell. What an awfully unjust thing to do to our female athletes. I can't imagine that we as a society would tolerate such unjust treatment of our female children. But, equal protection without fear? All day long.. It's a defense of universal human dignity, if nothing else.

If you don't understand the Bostock ruling then you won't understand this Executive Order. According to the reasoning of both it would be unjust to treat natural females and males-identifying-as-females differently. It will be against the law to prevent such males from playing female sports, entering female restrooms, or being accepted at female homeless shelters. As Ryan Anderson says, "More or less, what you’re going to see now is endless litigation for the next four years over female privacy when it comes to female-only spaces..."

The problem is that our post-Bostock law recognizes no difference between sex discrimination and gender identity discrimination.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,029
3,750
✟287,917.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I'm more worried that the church will marginalize itself into irrelevance by not continually evolving with the wider culture. The church and the wider secular society are strange bedfellows. But, they need each other. Neither can afford to ignore the other. For example, on the issue of usury, the Catholic church has had intense and strong opinions in the past (even threatening anathema). At its core, the critique against usury is an attempt to prevent those with power/wealth from abusing the needy. So, the church is probably right in its criticism of usury and the wider culture (e.g., predatory lending) is wrong. However, on the issues of slavery, the church was behind the wider society, if anything. Quakers were at the forefront of abolitionists in the U.S., but the Catholic church was not. It lagged behind and eventually caught up. But, I often wonder what it might have been like if we the church had led the way against slavery... Could have been a powerful witness to the world.

Per this logic the Church should have embraced the New Atheism to find itself 'relevant.' Per this logic the Church should have rejected the Idea of the resurrection or monotheism in the Roman empire. It was a marginal ideology after all and how could the Church not find itself being marginalized with it's bizarre and strange teachings about one God and this fellow called Jesus?

No, the Church should not compromise on the idea that biological reality is a real thing. Especially not the Catholic Church which insists on a male only clergy. Perhaps you disagree with your own Church and tradition in that regard but an appeal to the wider culture instead of Christian precedent seems weak.
 
Upvote 0

Magnanimity

Active Member
Dec 13, 2020
124
94
Atlanta
✟17,238.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
It will be against the law to prevent such males from playing female sports, entering female restrooms, or being accepted at female homeless shelters.

Maybe you're right. The dissenters to the Court's majority opinion reasoned that the opinion would open the floodgates to males-identifying-as-females competing against biological females. However, the majority opinion of Bostock doesn't mention sports inclusion at all.

Rather, the majority wrote, "Ours is a society of written laws. Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee's sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law."

That's very specific and targeted, and I think most Americans would agree with it. It is contrary to law (and unjust) to fire someone simply on that basis alone.

But, I'm not an attorney. I very much hope that caselaw and the recent EO do not eventuate in more boys competing against girls in sports. As I said above, that would be precisely regressive (in that it would be contrary to the clear spirit that underlies Title IX in the first place). Such a thing would be a terrible shame and I hope most Americans would oppose it as unjust.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
18,341
3,284
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟185,132.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
18,341
3,284
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟185,132.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I'm more worried that the church will marginalize itself into irrelevance by not continually evolving with the wider culture. The church and the wider secular society are strange bedfellows. But, they need each other. Neither can afford to ignore the other. For example, on the issue of usury, the Catholic church has had intense and strong opinions in the past (even threatening anathema). At its core, the critique against usury is an attempt to prevent those with power/wealth from abusing the needy. So, the church is probably right in its criticism of usury and the wider culture (e.g., predatory lending) is wrong. However, on the issues of slavery, the church was behind the wider society, if anything. Quakers were at the forefront of abolitionists in the U.S., but the Catholic church was not. It lagged behind and eventually caught up. But, I often wonder what it might have been like if we the church had led the way against slavery... Could have been a powerful witness to the world.

The Church opposed slavery almost 400 years before the civil war.

In fact after Columbus discovered America, the Pope issued a Papal Bull prohibiting the explorers from enslaving the indigenous peoples.

Sublimis Deus (English: The sublime God; erroneously cited as Sublimus Dei and occasionally as Sic Dilexit) is a bull promulgated by Pope Paul III on June 2, 1537, which forbids the enslavement of the indigenous peoples of the Americas (called Indians of the West and the South) and all other people.
Author: Pope Paul III
Date of first publication: June 2, 1537
 
Upvote 0

Magnanimity

Active Member
Dec 13, 2020
124
94
Atlanta
✟17,238.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Per this logic the Church should have rejected the Idea of the resurrection

Not quite. The Jewish people being in exile is what exposed them to ideas of resurrection in the first place. It has been very hard for religious scholars to locate pre-exilic Jewish beliefs in a resurrection. However, post-exilic Jewish thought finds such beliefs widespread. See here and here. So, this would be an example of God's people being open to whatever truths that can be found among the regular folks outside of the particular religious community.

No, the Church should not compromise on the idea that biological reality is a real thing.

That's not the argument. As I said above, the argument by the culture is that the church should not be restrictive to just the gender binary. Nor should the church participate in useless denials of gender dysphoria. If the medical community (i.e., the experts) asserts that this phenomenon is real, what reason would the church have to deny the reality? It makes the church look as if her head is in the sand. The tug of the wider culture is toward inclusion of others. Such inclusivity does not require that you cease believing in the genders of male and female.

an appeal to the wider culture instead of Christian precedent seems weak.

Except that's exactly the history of slavery. The church did not lead the way. The wider culture did, and the church eventually followed.
 
Upvote 0

Magnanimity

Active Member
Dec 13, 2020
124
94
Atlanta
✟17,238.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
The Church opposed slavery almost 400 years before the civil war.

Hi Jim! Nice to see a fellow CAF expat over here. The history of the church does find voices here and there that opposed slavery. That's true. In fact, I think that St. Gregory of Nyssa is the earliest Father who did so. But, the history of the Catholic church also holds within it the reality of slaves being owned by popes, slaves given as "gifts," etc. No historian denies this.

Additionally, and this is probably the worst aspect, it isn't until Vatican II that the CC explicitly and forthrightly condemns slavery as a moral evil. Vatican II...as in the 1960's... That's pretty late. All of this is not to say that the church has been perfectly ok with slavery for all of its history. But, it is to say that there was a certain tolerance of it (akin to the wider tolerance that we see for all of human history).

Pope Leo XIII was the first I know of to 'allow' money to be diverted to assist abolitionist movements. But again, when was the pontificate of Leo? 19th century. Not early. Not leading the way on this issue. This is the historical data. It's unfortunate. But it can't be denied and there's no use downplaying it.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I’m not sure how much of a new level it is. It is implementing the Supreme Courts decision. It goes beyond the decision in that it assumes that the understanding of sex discrimination that the court used will apply consistently, and not just in the specific instance brought before the Court.

Is it a redefinition of sex? The basis of the Court’s decision is that sex includes sexual orientation and identity. That seems like a pretty reasonable conclusion.

That’s not something changed by this EO. It has been part of our law for a while now. Trump gave people hope that it could be rolled back, but that seems unlikely. This EO is remarkable only in clearly accepting current legal concepts of sex.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Palmfever

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 5, 2019
647
349
Hawaii
✟146,121.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It is not persecution to protect young girls in a public bathroom, young girls on a high school sports team or women in professional sports and Olympics that will have to compete against males. Doctors will still treat women as women and men as men. Gender confusion is a disorder that needs proper treatment not encouragement. Some here will disagree with my statement and some will reply, don’t waste your time.

Romans,1:32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Take it up with God, Look to heaven and shout your objections. He designed nature. If Adam and Eve were queer, creation and/or evilution would have begun and ended with them. When God calls something evil and people call it good, they are not in God’s will, They, by His Word, along with the sinners, “are worthy of death.”

“Choose this day who you will serve.”
 
Upvote 0

Palmfever

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 5, 2019
647
349
Hawaii
✟146,121.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
But what about those who were created "queer"?
So you think God created queers, then said, You will be destroyed if you act out my programming. Sounds like Reformed theology. What God are we talking about? Certainly no god worthy of a nickles worth of time.
 
Upvote 0

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
Oct 2, 2009
4,760
3,103
New England
✟192,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yet some more EO's from the the radical left


In far-reaching executive order, Biden redefines 'sex'

He didn’t redefine sex, he redefined discrimination laws definitions of bias to include issues related to gender, orientation, and gender identity. Kind of like in the 1940s and 50s and 60s when legislation was enacted to clarify that laws that referred to “all men” were actually referring to “all people,” including women and minorities, not just white males as some were attempting to claim. Definition updates of legislation happen all the time, that’s just what this is. The only people who need to be in a lather are the ones who seek to legislate exclusions of social groups from basic rights and protections. Unclutch thy pearls.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,975.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The basis of the Court’s decision is that sex includes sexual orientation and identity. That seems like a pretty reasonable conclusion.

Conflating one's sex with one's sexual identity does not strike me as reasonable at all. Sexual orientation is similarly problematic. If modern "sexual orientations" have taught us anything, it is that they have nothing to do with sex.

So yes, the Executive Order is based on Bostock, and Bostock is deeply problematic. Bostock has ironically repealed the legal protections for females that things like Title VII were meant to provide, and it did so by "interpreting" Title VII. Females needed and continue to need protection from males. Females are the ones who will suffer now that Gorsuch and Biden have effectively abolished the legal category of sex. It will no longer be legal to bar foxes from henhouses. If the fox identifies as a hen then he is a hen, and it is illegal discrimination to say otherwise. Zoology is nothing more than astrology, says the newest diktat.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
18,341
3,284
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟185,132.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
He didn’t redefine sex, he redefined discrimination laws definitions of bias to include issues related to gender, orientation, and gender identity. Kind of like in the 1940s and 50s and 60s when legislation was enacted to clarify that laws that referred to “all men” were actually referring to “all people,” including women and minorities, not just white males as some were attempting to claim. Definition updates of legislation happen all the time, that’s just what this is. The only people who need to be in a lather are the ones who seek to legislate exclusions of social groups from basic rights and protections. Unclutch thy pearls.

He adds gender terms that were never used in history, "Zher and Zhe," as just two.

Also from the article;

He[John Bursch] warned that the executive order’s redefinition of sex will result in “a destructive effort to re-invent reality and destroy long-standing protections for women and girls,” even if this is not immediately evident.

Redefining ‘sex’ to mean ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ isn’t equality, and it isn’t progress,” he said. “The reason for that is that biology is not bigotry. When the law does not respect biological differences between men and women, it creates chaos and it hurts women and girls.”

Also;

The order, which Biden signed on the day of inauguration, discusses children’s access to restrooms, locker rooms, and school sports; access to health care; and workers whose dress “does not conform to sex-based stereotypes,” among other topics.

Nancy Pelosi goes further and words defining gender will no longer be used in the House of Representatives. Words like "mother, father, sister or brother," will no longer be allowed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Stand back and just let the left eat itself. They will have a snowflake civil war with this, especially their toxic feminists who are now going to have rationalize their whole women's rights with men invading and taking a way all the hard work various women have put in to compete.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
18,341
3,284
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟185,132.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Radical left???

It's leftist who requested the change of sexual identification on federal forms as
they're the only one's focused on gender identity and race.

Certainly not those from the center or the right
 
Upvote 0