Transgender issues and discussions

[LVAllen]

Foul, evil people in the HHS. Admiral Rachel Levine ws the Asst Sec for Health. Someone went in and altered her portrait to reflect a name that was not her legal name, nor was it her name when she served. And yes, this is what this administration would prefer happen to all trans folks.

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-h...m_campaign=npr

[frank ryan]

Foul, evil people in the HHS. Admiral Rachel Levine ws the Asst Sec for Health. Someone went in and altered her portrait to reflect a name that was not her legal name, nor was it her name when she served. And yes, this is what this administration would prefer happen to all trans folks.

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-h...m_campaign=npr

Transpeople aren't people to this administration. Never did Matt Walsh or pop-Psychologist Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, or Joe Rogan platform a transperson whose story didn't bolster their take.

Now they are pushing the narrative further. You've got Tucker Carlson, the epitome of secure heterosexual masculinity talking about homosexuality being the result of pornography consumption.

[Jeff Lebowski]

SCOTUS hearing arguments today on laws banning trans male athletes from female sports. This will be interesting.

[BigPiney]

SCOTUS hearing arguments today on laws banning trans male athletes from female sports. This will be interesting.

I have no problem with that.

[dabrockster]

Hopefully sound reasoning prevails..

[YOhio]

SCOTUS hearing arguments today on laws banning trans male athletes from female sports. This will be interesting.

Washington Post weighs in on the side of common sense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...s-transgender/

The Supreme Court has the chance this week to save women’s sports, allowing states to restore a level playing field for girls by excluding biological men and thereby correcting one of the worst excesses of America’s cultural revolution.
On Tuesday, the justices will hear oral arguments in challenges to laws enacted by West Virginia and Idaho. The court is weighing whether blocking biological males who identify as women from participating in female sports violates their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The answer is obviously no, and the very existence of these cases represents a failure of policy and politics.

It’s a policy failure because activist groups pushed for policies that were far outside the mainstream. About 7 in 10 U.S. adults believe athletic participation should be determined by biological sex, not gender identity. It’s a political failure because those groups never really tried to make a compelling case for their agenda. Instead, they attacked those who disagreed as transphobic and sought to shut down debate.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is incredible.

Embedded Tweet

[LVAllen]

This is incredible.

Embedded Tweet

It's not, actually. And it's an issue that was resolved in Bostick v. Clayton County, 590 US 644 (2020). "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."

Alito bitched about it then, too.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's not, actually. And it's an issue that was resolved in Bostick v. Clayton County, 590 US 644 (2020). "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."

Alito bitched about it then, too.

Seems like apples and oranges.

Later in the argument, Alito posited a circumstance where a guy decides that he is now a woman and wants to compete on a woman's sports team. No hormone treatment, surgery, etc. Just identifies as a woman. He asked the ACLU attorney if that person could be denied participation. She said yes, and he went on to ask, "Then how is that not discrimination against a transgender person?"

So based on the snippet you posted above, what would be your response to that? Seems like a pretty black and white example of denying participation based on "traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex".

[All-American]

It's not, actually. And it's an issue that was resolved in Bostick v. Clayton County, 590 US 644 (2020). "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."

Alito bitched about it then, too.

Except in Bostock, you couldn't discriminate on the basis of sex. Here, if you want to have women's sports, you have to discriminate on the basis of sex.

[frank ryan]

I have no problem with that.

I don't either, I did trans people deserve other civil projections but the sports thing isn't a tough sell for me

[LVAllen]

Except in Bostock, you couldn't discriminate on the basis of sex. Here, if you want to have women's sports, you have to discriminate on the basis of sex.

Right. It's not a question of whether it's discrimination on the basis of sex. It 100% is, and it's bad faith naval gazing on Alito's part to pretend he can't determine it. The question is whether the discrimination is justifiable.

[All-American]

Right. It's not a question of whether it's discrimination on the basis of sex. It 100% is, and it's bad faith naval gazing on Alito's part to pretend he can't determine it. The question is whether the discrimination is justifiable.

I'm not following. I don't think for a minute that Alito is suggesting he can't distinguish between the genders.

[LVAllen]

I'm not following. I don't think for a minute that Alito is suggesting he can't distinguish between the genders.

When a transwoman is discriminated against in an employment setting, it's usually because she doesn't appear feminine enough. Her voice is too deep, or her breasts aren't enough. Characteristics that the only reason we question them in the first place is because they don't conform to our own determined mental image of what a woman looks like, or how a woman acts, or how a woman sounds. If we saw a man with the same deep voice, we wouldn't question it because that's just how a man sounds, or looks like. In other words, sex is the distinguishing marker.

In the same way, trying to ban transgendered people from sports is 100% sex discrimination. The question is whether that's okay in these circumstances and whether there there bona fide reasons that excuse it.

[All-American]

When a transwoman is discriminated against in an employment setting, it's usually because she doesn't appear feminine enough. Her voice is too deep, or her breasts aren't enough. Characteristics that the only reason we question them in the first place is because they don't conform to our own determined mental image of what a woman looks like, or how a woman acts, or how a woman sounds. If we saw a man with the same deep voice, we wouldn't question it because that's just how a man sounds, or looks like. In other words, sex is the distinguishing marker.

In the same way, trying to ban transgendered people from sports is 100% sex discrimination. The question is whether that's okay in these circumstances and whether there there bona fide reasons that excuse it.

Right-- banning biological men from competing in women's sports is sex discrimination (though no one thinks it is not permissible, and some even think it is required).

I'm not understanding why you think it follows that Alito's question is "bad faith navel gazing."