USA: Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC and Aimee Stephens

[GrinitchSpinach]

I have been meaning to post on this important case due to be argued before the US Supreme Court October 8, 2019, but have put it off because it's a bit complicated. I think most of us here would support Stephens' desire to wear appropriate attire regardless of sex stereotypes, but the legal precedent that could be set here is extremely important.

A male person who now identifies as a woman called Aimee Stephens was dismissed from a position at a funeral home because of Stephens' unwillingness to wear the business attire required for Stephens' sex by the employer.(This is not illegal in the United States).

Importantly, Stephens and lawyers have not argued that the different standards for attire based on sex are unconstitutional; instead my understanding is that they have argued that Stephens is indeed a woman based on gender identity, and for that reason is entitled to wear the professional attire expected of women in this industry.

The following recent USA Today article explores the implications for women's and girls' sports, but in fact the decision will have consequences reaching far beyond sports and employment. Women's Liberation Front has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the side of Harris, in order to argue for the preservation of the legal definition of sex in America.

Since the advent of Title IX — a federal law that expanded athletic and educational opportunities for women — millions of girls and women have benefited from their own teams and chances for growth. But these opportunities risk being redefined and obliterated, because of a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court... The case centers on the question of whether the meaning of the word "sex" in employment law (Title VII) also covers gender identity...Not only should business owners be able to rely on the plain meaning of the law, courts shouldn’t take on Congress’s job and reinvent the meaning of “sex.”
www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2019/09/27/transgender-athletes-supreme-court-sex-equality-column/2421776001/

“Congress knew very well what the word ‘sex’ means when it included that word in the list of categories of people in need of civil rights protections,” said Kara Dansky, who serves on the board of the Women’s Liberation Front. “There is no basis, nor is there any reason, for this Court to hold that sex means anything other than what everyone knows it means.”
WoLF additionally argues that to require an employer, or anyone, to believe and/or state that men can be women violates the First Amendment. “The notion that a man can be a woman, or that a woman can be a man, is nothing other than a belief system, adhered to by a very small segment of society,” said Natasha Chart, the WoLF board Chair. “No one should be required to agree with that belief system, or to use compelled speech to further it.”
womensliberationfront.org/womens-liberation-front-files-friend-of-the-court-brief-in-harris-funeral-homes-v-eeoc-and-aimee-stephens/

[AlwaysTawnyOwl]

This is indeed an important case as it could set into law the belief that 'transwomen are women, no different from biological women'. This would have huge ramifications, particularly if being a transwoman is simply a case of declaring oneself to be one. All barriers designed to protect women's dignity, privacy and safety would be gone, and there would be no protection from a Yaniv-style 'wax my balls' case. Similarly programmes designed to promote women in areas where they are disadvantaged would be open to any male self-identifying as a woman, and women's sports are already open to biological males, disadvantaging women in their own sports.
This is an all out attack on women's rights.

[terfsandwich]

Again, that infantile, cutesy spelling of Aimee. It shouts "I want to be a small child" to me.

[Angryresister]

Women for years have been told how to dress for work. Could this person have worn trousers on the job? It wouldn’t have harmed him to do so. No one should be forced to believe the lie though. Important precedent if it goes through. But shouldn’t have been sacked for not wearing certain clothes

[Insertdeadcatsnamehere]

Just read an Guardian article about this. Clearly this person shouldn't have lost their job (no employer should be able to dictate what people wear in a sex-specific way) but the reporting and conflating of issues (employment discrimination and sex based protections) was so confused, the article was tying itself in knots trying to make a coherent argument, there's no nuance at all in the reporting and no room for a casual reader to only partly agree - you're completely, uncritically with them or you're against them. It's really poor journalism.

As an aside the initial hair comment made me raise my eyebrows. No wonder someone grew up to have identity issues when they were raised in such a strictly stereotyped environment. Can't wait to break the news of their true gender to my long haired male friends. 1 yr old daughter still mostly bald too. Better get her a wig before it makes her grow a dick...

www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/30/there-is-no-protection-case-of-trans-woman-fired-after-coming-out-could-make-history

[Juells]

But shouldn’t have been sacked for not wearing certain clothes

Get a different job, then. FFS the entitlement drives me crazy. When I was mourning a close relative and went to the funeral home, I didn't want to register the employees there in any way whatsoever. They were quiet, anonymous, dressed in dark clothes that didn't draw attention to themselves. Funeral home employees need to be practically invisible, who the heck wants to sit there wondering if the person in front of you is female or oddly-dressed male? Work somewhere else.

[Juells]

Now 58, Stephens, modest, quietly spoken but full of steely reserve

[Yeahnahyeah]

Ok, technically they should not have lost their job under a clothing code.
But ffs, come on!
...One of the most sensitive jobs possible, where decorum is paramount.

I'll leave it at that.

[zanahoria]

I don't think they should have lost their job but this could have ramifications as a test case.

I also think that when legislators draft laws with the word 'sex' that is what it should mean.

TRAs always claim there is a difference between sex and gender then conflate them when it suits.

[Juells]

They appear to be not only self centred narcissists who expect everyone else to tiptoe round them making for an unpleasant working environment, but walking law suits.

Yes, the ramifications hadn't occurred to me, I was thinking of it only from the customer's point of view. Woke employers are getting a bit of a kicking, being taken to court no matter how accommodating and supportive they've been.

[MadamBatty]

Juells I’ve has the same experience & totally agree

I wonder about uniform? For example paramedics or fire fighter. Could an undo state it is discrimination to wear a ynifor?

[fridgegrazer]

Again, that infantile, cutesy spelling of Aimee. It shouts "I want to be a small child" to me.

I always thought it was the French version - Aimée meaning loved.

[terfsandwich]

If it's supposed to be the French version of Amy, then put an accent on the "e". To me it looks like cutesy wootsy modern respellings, like Jawja and Chelsee.

[Grambler]

modest, quietly spoken but full of steely reserve

Is that an upgrade from Brave and Stunning? Is there a scale? How does it work? How do you progress - do you have to sue someone to move up from B&S to MQSFSR?

[Pota2]

Two points:
1 Sex should always mean biological sex

2 There is no justification, beyond stereotypes, why a member of one sex must be dressed differently to a member of the opposite sex. Therefore I don’t think employers can set different standards for the sexes and we have seen the harmful effects it has, eg by forcing women to wear makeup or high heels.

[GrinitchSpinach]

Yes, but Stephens isn't challenging the employer's right to have different dress codes for men and women. Stephens is saying that because Stephens identifies as a woman, Stephens is in fact and in law a woman. This is a test case trying to get the court to rule that "sex" = "gender identity" in law, with sweeping implications for all kinds of legislation. It is a test case to get women and girls erased as a discrete civil rights class.

This is cool: apparently Linda Bellos will speak at a WoLF rally outside the Supreme Court October 8! Cue complaints about her guilt-by-association with American women who once spoke at the Heritage Foundation...

[Pota2]

In that case I hope the court makes the distinction. Stephens should be allowed to wear the female uniform but not because Stephens is a biological female but because clothes have fuck all to do with biology and it’s unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of sex and say that a man cannot wear a skirt.

It shows that TRAs are not interested in erasing any binary. They are happy with the binary, they just want to change sides. Even non-binary people can’t be said to want to erase it either, they just want to create a separate category for themselves. Example: all women must wear high heels to work. NB female person: I am NB so it shouldn’t apply to me. Rather than arguing that it shouldn’t apply to any person unless they really want to wear heels.

[Datun]

What if a transwoman wants to wear a short skirt, fishnets and suspenders in their rape crisis counselling role?

I agree that enforced dress codes usually disadvantage women. But it's a very subjective issue.

[Pota2]

Datun no person, male or female, should be permitted to wear a short skirt and fishnets to most workplaces. It’s about decency rather than sex.

Plus hopefully most rape centres are single sex, or they would be in an ideal world anyway...

[Datun]

But that's the problem, Pota2. The subjectivity.

Women regularly wear short skirts to work. And certainly in the 80s and 90s fishnet tights, or a variation thereof, were standard, back seams, all the little bows on the ankles, etc. Many women wear suspenders.

So how is decency implemented? It's completely subjective.

When you have some men saying they're women, who actively have a fetish requiring women's clothing, how can you stop them from exploiting people on the back of it, if you can't acknowledge it, and aren't allowed to implement a dress code to combat it?

[skql]

pota2

i feels like it's slippery slope.

look at canada's bil16.
it's ok to be called 'she' just be kind.->if person called 'she' she's woman.

in this case
it's ok to man wear uniform for woman.->and man wear woman's uniform, he is she.

[skql]

and i think employee should wear proper uniform at work.
i don't want to watch bondage rubber man or bunny girl at kindergarten.

[BernardBlacksWineIceLolly]

Blimey, this is going to be interesting

Watching avidly, thanks for posting

[ScrimshawTheSecond]

Stephens should be allowed to wear the female uniform but not because Stephens is a biological female but because clothes have fuck all to do with biology and it’s unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of sex and say that a man cannot wear a skirt.

This.

[skql]

stephens force others to accept he's woman.

Essentially, it's mild version of yaniv.