Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Yuchen Pei (quasi@peister.org)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 15:34:22 JST Yuchen Pei
   The trans rights movement is on the fast track to failure
   
   https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5019710-transgender-rights-movement-legal-challenges/
   
   QUOTE
   
   Traditionally, progressive movements pursue one of two approaches: equality or equity, depending on the specific needs of the group they aim to support. Equality-focused movements push for equal treatment across the board, while equity-driven movements advocate for special accommodations to level the playing field for vulnerable groups.
   
   A prime example of an equality-based movement is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which mandates that institutions receiving federal funding cannot discriminate based on race, color, or national origin. This law demands equal treatment, leaving no room for differential treatment, even when well-intentioned.
   
   On the other hand, the Americans with Disabilities Act exemplifies an equity-driven approach. It recognizes that individuals with disabilities need specific accommodations to ensure they can participate in society on an equal footing. The ADA requires treating people with disabilities differently from those without in order to achieve fairness, which acknowledges their unique challenges.
   
   Title IX, which protects women’s rights in educational settings, balances both equality and equity. It prohibits discrimination based on sex in academic admissions (an equality measure), acknowledging that biological differences have no bearing on intellectual capabilities. But it also allows for separate men’s and women’s sports teams (an equity measure), recognizing that biological differences can affect fairness and safety in athletic competition.
   
   The transgender rights movement has had notable success using equality-based legal strategies. For example, the Bostock decision held that discrimination based on gender identity in employment is illegal under Title VII.
   • Embed this notice
     Yuchen Pei (quasi@peister.org)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 15:34:24 JST Yuchen Pei

     in reply to
     This makes sense: just as religion or skin color does not affect one’s ability to perform a job, neither does gender identity.
     
     However, the movement has also pushed for equity-driven changes that defy biological reality and conflict with the existing sex-based protections women have fought for. This is where things begin to unravel.
     
     In U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Department of Justice is asking the Supreme Court to afford “gender identity” the same heightened review standard that “sex” currently receives, which it hopes will thereby render state laws that ban “gender-affirming” medical treatment for minors unconstitutional. But our legal system’s framework for sex-based protections is built on the recognition of biological differences between men and women. 
     
     Laws that discriminate based on sex are subjected to “intermediate scrutiny,” a judicial test that allows for sex-based distinctions when they serve an important purpose, such as preserving fairness in women’s sports by preventing men from competing on female teams. If a sex-based discriminatory law is reasonably related to achieving an important interest — such as providing opportunities for females to participate and compete fairly in athletics — the court will find that the law is constitutional. 
     
     Since “gender identity” occurs outside the confines of objective biological reality, and often renders the meaning of the words “men” and “women” interchangeable, it cannot logically be classified on par with sex. To classify it that way would eliminate all current legal distinctions based on sex, which is why the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to do what the Justice Department has asked. It is a losing proposition from a legal standpoint, precisely because it puts transgender rights directly at odds with women’s rights, making the two mutually exclusive.
   • Embed this notice
     ӀɑվӀɑ ɑӀҽ×ɑղժɾօѵղɑ ? (laylaalexandrovna@spinster.xyz)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 15:50:06 JST ӀɑվӀɑ ɑӀҽ×ɑղժɾօѵղɑ ?

     in reply to
     @quasi Good explanation. It still all seems ridiculous to me that this was ever considered.
     
     We already have such ridiculous legislation in place here since 2016 thanks to our dictator.
     Yuchen Pei likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Yuchen Pei (quasi@peister.org)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 15:51:28 JST Yuchen Pei

     in reply to

     • ӀɑվӀɑ ɑӀҽ×ɑղժɾօѵղɑ ?
     @LaylaAlexandrovna
     Canada is doing better than Australia. At least you have Alberta. In Australia the GC side has not scored a win yet.