One of the endless raft of things that are Not On
You may have noticed that when it comes to trans rights, I’ve been hot and bothered about people casually stepping all over women as if they didn’t matter or even exist. I’ve also tried to be careful to say that transpeople should most definitely have all the same civil rights as all other people.
This falls into Category 2.
The Dumpsterfire’s administration has come up with some more codswallop:
An amicus brief filed by the Justice Department weighed in on two cases involving gay workers and what is meant by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination “because of sex.” The administration argued courts nationwide should stop reading the civil rights law to protect gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers from bias because it was not originally intended to do so. …
[I]t argued last week in a related brief against transgender rights, in which the Justice Department said companies should be able to fire people because they are transgender as well.
Next to concentration camps for children, losing jobs could be seen as a small potatoes human rights violation, but it is a human rights violation. It’s all cut from the same cloth of this horrific transnational crime syndicate of an Administration.
Hi, Quixote, I totally agreed with you and even wrote a facebook post about this. I wrote that the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act should be broadly interpreted to include both sexual orientation and “gender identity” and I still believe that all people should have equal human rights to things like housing, employment, health care regardless of sexual orientation or “gender identity.” But an article I just read today has me maybe wondering if maybe I wasn’t a little premature as to “gender identity.” The reason is because the word “sex” is generally interpreted the same in Title IX as it is in Title VII, and Title IX is the legislation which guarantees girls equal opportunity with boys in sports programs in schools.
From the article:
“In the long run, a ruling interpreting “sex” to include gender identity will undermine the legal justification for maintaining any sex-specific athletic teams at all and could, logically, result in the elimination of women’s sports altogether. Indeed, some activists hope for just such a result, arguing that sex is a social construct and that sex-segregation in sport is inherently unjust and should be illegal. But is there any doubt that without sex-specific sport, the majority of athletic opportunities would go to men? Title IX was not passed to achieve such a result.”
Branjor on September 5th, 2019 at 09:09
I have a simple mind so to me, it’s all simple. Trans people should have the same civil rights as everyone else. No less, also no more. No privileges at women’s expense.
As for anything physical: sport, medicine, it’s the *biology* that matters. Reality doesn’t care how you feel.
When it comes to sport, excuuuse me?, we have classes among male boxers separated by a few pounds. But somehow it’s A-OK for somebody 90 lbs heavier than everybody else on the field to smash into them in rugby? Bullshit.
There’s no other sports situation where people can play outside their class. High schoolers don’t play against grade schoolers. Seniors don’t play against college kids. It’s only women who are supposed to shut up and take it. Bullshit. Or did I say that already?
quixote on September 8th, 2019 at 01:16
Here’s something that clarifies the transgender rights employment case, Harris Funeral Homes vs. EEOC a bit more:
“The case in question is Harris Funeral Homes vs EEOC and Aimee Stephens. Stephens was fired from his job at the funeral home after announcing his intention to present as “female.”
This is a slightly confusing case for those of us (almost all of us, I’d think?) who believe that sex stereotypes should not govern what is considered “appropriate attire” in the workplace. However, Stephens and his lawyers are NOT arguing that sex-stereotyped dress codes in the workplace are unconstitutional.
Instead they are arguing that because Stephens identifies as a woman, Stephens is LITERALLY a woman, and sex-discrimination legislation should protect him on this basis. In other words, if Stephens succeeds, the Supreme Court will enshrine gender identity in all our laws; redefining “female” as an unverifiable, subjective feeling that anyone can have, and thereby eliminating sex-based protections (and even accurate data collection) for American women and girls. This is a Big. Deal.”
This is from a post on the Gender Critical subreddit https://old.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/dbgj34/dc_area_radfems_join_a_wolf_rally_outside_the_us/
Branjor on October 7th, 2019 at 19:54
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today in the Harris case.
Branjor on October 8th, 2019 at 08:41
That Harris case is a can of worms.
On one hand, of course people should wear anything clean and presentable that they want to work.
On the other hand, of course people can’t claim membership in a group on their own say-so. It’s not even on the map for any group … except women of course who are always to shut up and put up.
On the third hand, as they used to say on my much-missed Car Talk, who does this turkey think he is? He’s going to tube rights for the whole LGB and T community by tying their real workplace rights to his private fantasies.
And on the fourth hand, if he wins, it means half the country has lost, and any men who care about women, or human rights, or a reasonable society, have lost too.
The whole thing, just aargh.
quixote on October 8th, 2019 at 17:29
Yes,the Harris case is a nightmare for women’s rights, LGB rights, (reasonable) T rights, human rights in general and the country, which is why I hope the SCOTUS rules against Stephens and the EEOC on this one. Given the conservative majority presently on the Court, I think there is a good chance that might happen. However, it is so past time that employment discrimination be outlawed on the basis of sexual orientation, which we would have had a few years back with a proposed bill (I forget the name of it), except that trans advocates insisted that “gender identity” be added to the protections along with sexual orientation and the bill did not pass because of that, and so now we have neither.
Branjor on October 9th, 2019 at 12:46