Kansas bans trans Kansans from changing gender on ID.

Is that true? It's true that my license doesn't identify my race, but not sure if that's why. I thought that the race(s) of the mom and/or both parents are typically listed on birth certificates? Don't have mine on me, but that makes me wonder about potential subjectivity there.

 

Sooo we are changing the subject now because my point didnt fit your narrative?

Not interested.

 

Kansas stands against madness. Libs apoplectic.

 

It was just a question. I’m not sure why you dance around the issue. I honestly don’t know where you stand on this issue. It seems like you are all over the board. You are generally defensive of near total abortion bans (with exceptions) but then prefer a 22 week ban to one that potentially has too narrow of exceptions.

I don’t have a narrative. My position on the issue is quite clear and I have no problem repeating it.

 

The first line that you quoted is a question (meant to write "What" rather than "That"). The second line is my opinion based on utility (presumably, it is at least a factor of many factors). A racial label for physical assistance becomes useless as a more accurate physical identifier exists (your photo). It could also increase confusion as race is self-identified just as socially constructed gender is; I don't see how it adds any utility in an identification situation...but again, this is based on the idea that most "gender-based distinctions" are not actually intended to be "socially constructed gender based distinctions." It's a worthwhile conversation to be had for those interested in having it.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I have to say, I don’t have a big problem with the verbiage of this legislation.

 

I've been crystal clear as well. I also dont want people at risk who have health issues. This could have done that. Its very simple.

Replacement should happen if a repeal exists. Just like health care. Not just some open ended legislation that says nothing.

 

Yeah I was just thinking it all through. My understanding is that "race" is not necessarily scientific or objectively defined. Of course, that never stopped law enforcement from using racial profiling (even when there's no specific crime being investigated) - much less racial descriptors, which are standard practice. We know that racial/ethnic ancestry correlates with various diseases, so I'm not sure race is entirely subjective either. I assume for the census that the government simply accepts whatever race one reports, but might it be considered fraudulent to lie about one's "race" in certain contexts?

 

So a person born male who has had genital surgery and no longer has a penis will always be considered male under Kansas state law. Presumably that would also apply to a person with an intersex condition who was originally categorized as male at the time of birth including a person born with ambiguous genitalia (very rare but it does happen). How about this person born with a condition called AIS, characteristics of which include external female genitalia, XY chromosomes and undeveloped internal male genitalia. Interestingly, although she would almost certainly be categorized as female on her birth certificate she wouldn't be considered as such under Section 1(a)(2) of the Kansas statute which defines a female as a person with a female reproductive system.

 

I don't want cross dressing sexual fetist men wearing revealing outfits reading to our children.

The left has no logic or morality on their side. This is why they always have to brainwash the children into their evil ideas at a young age to maintain their base. Thankfully red states are finally fighting back and stopping it. The rein of the left is over.

 

What is a "sexual fetist?" You are just so logical that you are making up words?

But just to clarify, transgendered people are evil? That is your version of "logic?"

 

Some of us value freedom. Other people like yourself hate it.

 

Do you even understand the difference between a drag queen and someone who is transsexual? Hint…they’re not the same thing.

 

Definitions get tricky when you try to force a binary system on something that isn't binary.

 

That's Mr tranny to you...

 

Love the focus on semantics, with the swift dodge of the issue at hand. Makes me feel so much better about your position. Perhaps you don't understand, because you're not a man and a father, but any dude who's posing as a woman, trying to get to my child's school to read books with them and they don't have any kids at that school to begin with... that's dripping with sus. If you don't see that or feel that, I don't know how I can help you. It's not normal and parents are perfectly in their rights to be cautious with their children. Not only is it abnormal, it reinforces that mental illness need not be treated and we should just allow said mentally ill to do as they please, even if it directly involves our children. Parents have rights and we should be encouraged to see parents taking initiative in their children's education.

 

It's the kind of thread where people who can't spell "ma'am" show off their spelling skills while desperately trying to make a point.

Another rightie with a "circle jerk" infatuation. Such a strange pattern.

 

I'm just saddened that some of these people have school age children and think they should be more actively involved in their education.

I have always had a tremendous respect for teachers and am quite concerned that quality educators (you) in this state will just decide it's not worth it any longer and leave our children's education to these people with poisoned minds. Stay the course, our children desperately need you.

 

What a really bizarre hill to die on. "Parents, your children are children of the state, not yours. Yes, we know you pay our salaries, but mind your beez. And we're gonna let those trannies read to ya (oops) I mean our kids." I'm still not sure how the left got suckered into this one. It's such an asinine position. Probably a GOP trap and some idiot leftists took the bait and ran with it.