[Clubber]

What does that have to do with denying a FOIA request? Sorry, you used the wrong pronouns, you are denied FOIA? Intent of the FOIA request is irrelevant, otherwise the government could deny FOIA for people who want to make the government look bad, which honestly is probably the case here.

[vmception]

its not about a pronoun, so looks like you're also conflating concepts

no pronouns need to be added or used to correct the malformed FOIA request

it conflates sex and gender, I said what I said, its accurate that it is doing that.

> Total number of male persons who identify as female, non-binary, or any other gender identity

The request would be "Total number of male persons that identify as women". The sex doesn't change, the gender does. The FOIA request would say invalid, or zero, and be accurate, regarding the ones identifying as "female". The "other gender identify" may cover it, but not necessarily. Males identifying as men wouldn't have been transferred. So "other than what"? "Female" is not a gender, unless we are accepting that any arbitrary identification is valid, but would that be grounds for transfer?

But yes that can just say "males transferred", because they remain male.

Its a conditional argument because legal circumstances follow conditional logic. So if it seems obtuse, oh well, thats how it works.

[tsimionescu]

But that's not what happened. Instead, the state refused to fill the FOIA request at all, and the ACLU sued to help them.

If this had been maliciously complied with, the whole discussion would have been different.

[womensrights]

> The request would be "Total number of male persons that identify as women". The sex doesn't change, the gender does. The FOIA request would say invalid, or zero, and be accurate, regarding the ones identifying as "female".

Actually a lot of them now do identity as female, and claim to have literally changed their sex from male to female.

The old idea of "man/woman refers to gender, male/female refers to sex" no longer applies these days.

Not content with colonizing the word "woman", they've now done the same to "female".

This is contemporary trans discourse for you, erasing women and trampling all over women's rights.

[vmception]

from what I can tell, consensus hasn't been made and there is a lot of regional consensus. For example, I see US English honing in on "man/woman refers to gender, male/female refers to sex" while some Commonwealth English not having that exact distinction. On the internet, this makes things very confusing because its not clear where consensus is, and its not clear if someone is saying something exclusionary when they're critiquing the nomenclature. obviously, if you are fearing something that doesn't make sense, this ambiguous regional discourse masquerading as consensus only will validate your suspicions.