1carus_x

1carus_x OP t1_j44lrbw wrote

I mean you can be factually wrong if you want to, but it doesn't change the reality

Eta since my og was removed: Nothing on its own, as technically with transitioning trans people are their biological sex. By definition, it is based off several components: chromosomes, gonads, hormones, genitals, and secondary sex characteristics. With hrt and surgeries, they eventually fall into those categories. However, with the lack of description in the law it allows it to be interpreted by who ever is using it at the moment. It also further erases intersex people, who do not fall directly into male or female, are the ones actually receiving genital mutilations as young children

18

1carus_x OP t1_j44ehz0 wrote

Great way to admit you only passed high school biology, actually, not even as I learned about the different types of sex in high school, and that someone half your age knows more abt the thing you act like you know anything abt.
Thanks for spending so much money on giving me rewards tho 💖

11

1carus_x OP t1_j44e7p1 wrote

Nope, intersex people are actually common, just as common as red heads, around 1.7% . Do you think those with blue eyes also have an abnormal condition since it was a mutation?
Again, don't care for your intersexism. And once again, I am asking, which of the several categories of sex are we referring to? Chromosomal, gonadal, morphological, endocrinologic? Intersex people's sex changes drastically depending on that category you're using.

3

1carus_x OP t1_j42ouli wrote

For HB264, here's what would be required instead of surgery:
>""a new birth record shall be prepared to reflect a change in the individual's gender upon receipt of a notarized certification by a licensed and qualified health care provider affirming the individual's gender designation.
>The notarized certification shall be signed by a licensed and qualified health care provider under the penalty of RSA 5-C:14. It shall provide that the named individual is currently or was previously under the signing health care provider's care, and that in the health care provider's professional opinion the individual's gender is male or female and can be reasonably expected to continue as such for the foreseeable future.""

Honestly I'm a bit confused abt the m or f considering new Hampshire has the option of X now, but you can't just walk in and get one, there's still some hoops to go through. Also, 296 would be subpoenas regarding trans care specifically rather than like ALL, if a trans person is under investigation for murder they'll obviously still look into it

4

1carus_x OP t1_j42j03a wrote

I guess you completely missed the part where enacting the bill would further hurt cis women and even make it easier for predators, if anything he could simply claim he's a trans man

I am well aware it doesn't happen. It's called using their logic, if they're so insistant on believing a cis man would pretend to be a trans woman, it could be far easier to just pretend to be a trans man if this bill passes

−4

1carus_x OP t1_j42dxey wrote

Dear [name],
New Hampshire's motto is "Live Free or Die", and HB396 would prevent residents from doing such. A similar bill was introduced last year, HB1180, which failed. There is a reason for it's failing, New Hampshirites believe in living free. HB264 will help make New Hampshire a safer place, requiring surgery for trans people will often result in forced sterilization just so they can be legally seen, all of which would have been for nothing if HB396 passes. HB368 will help protect trans people across the country. As Oklahoma is trying to ban all gender affirming care, other states like Oregon, Virgina, Arkansas, Indiana, Washington, Florida, Mississippi, and many, many more whom are trying to erase, criminalize and ban the existence of trans people, a trans sanctuary bill is more important than ever. Please help save lives of those whom are already marginalized and at risk, pass HB264 and HB368.

18