SCOTUS ruling on LBGT rights

Well, if this means that trans people in the military can no longer be fired for being trans, that's great! Woo hoo!!

( I was shocked at the ping pong nature of the fire/hire... based on who the POTUS is )

If it means that women's box is defined in law and women must stay in their box - Not so woo hoo.
(Still reading and getting my head around this)

Hmmmmm.... And herein we have the difficulty.

Where do GC feminists spend their energy and patience of those on the sidelines (neither of which are limitless) - Briefing on all the ways this could go wrong or briefing on all the ways this underlines sex as natal sex.

I know what I would rather do...

I think it would be better to be open-eyed to the uncertainties that the judgement has introduced and to be forward-thinking about how they might be exploited to the detriment of women and girls.

No amount of interpreting the judgement in ways that are favourable to women and girls will help if the consequence is that more women's single sex spaces are forced to accept transwomen.

I just feel that wolf and other GC feminists would be MUCH better served by emphasizing that SCOTUS ruling has supported the opinion Of GC feminists and 90% of humans that Legal sex=natal sex under title VII.

Note unlike what the video says, the Supreme Court did not “uphold” dress codes As OK for non trans people. They just say this ruling doesn’t address them directly and further cases could be brought. The language used in this ruling could be copy pasted to refute legality of sex specific dress codes.

Wolf should bring these cases to

I don't want people fired from their jobs for their sexuality or personal gender identity but neither do I want gender identity, in particular a 'woman identity' to be something codified into law.

I'd echo what was said earlier about watching the WOLF video linked to upthread:

The judgement has made much unclear and there are no clear answers as to what the consequences will be. There will be a free-for-all until certainty comes from a clarifying law being passed or another Supreme Court judgement.

Grinich

Thanks for the reminder about that case As background context

Amazing how things shave both changed and also... not in the last 13 years.

They may have deliberately left it vague enough, yet specific to this particular case to force clarification by Congress.

DonkeySkin

But those objections hinge on the idea That 1) Aimee is Considered female by the court - when its clear from the language that the Opposite Sex comparator For Aimee is a female person. And 2) that sex segregation in employment is illegal generally (So a male person should never be barred from any job on account of sex). But You’re already allowed to discriminate in hiring if Being a particular Sex is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (as defined in this ruling, this would mean natal sex, not gender ID).

As for sport And schools that would be title IX and I don’t know the language there though I’ve read the Dear Colleague letter from Obama and it’s a mess (and anyway not law now anyway). My understanding would be that title IX Itself has similarly narrow language WRT sex and could be legislated in the same textual way As this, based Only on natal sex. I very much hope the Connecticut case reaches SCOTUS To test this question.

Of course the media isn’t helping here with its over interpretation and I do completely agree that activists will do whatever they can to over or misinterpret the ruling in their own favor.

In some ways I applaud the court passing Almost entirely over the Gender ID argument. I am sure that behind that opinion there were discussions about its legal viability, and There was likely disagreement with this Result as the compromise Position. I’m actually not sure about the idea of lawyers testing “gender identity” as a legal concept directly. For one thing, even if ruled as I see it as a Spiritual/religious Belief, that could be protected by Title VII since religious beliefs are protected category. Of course this would have the benefit of also protecting “gender atheists” from discrimination so would be good in that way. :shrug: in any case it likely will come to a head if the CT track and field case makes it to SCOTUS as the entire argument of the defendants is based on it.

In the meanwhile the lower courts are free to wreak havoc on single-sex provision, by interpreting it as a form of sex discrimination against persons who claim transgender status.

I'm coming round to the view that the Supreme Court judgement settles nothing but is simply the starting gun in a legal war over gender identity. Those groups seeking to oppose gender identity becoming equivalent to sex in US law need now to be actively working on those legal cases that can be accelerated to end up in the Supreme Court in the near term.

'gender identity' has no objective definition.

This right here, especially at it pertains to situations involving younger persons who are not at an age where doctors will significantly begin transition.

Which kind of gets back to what I said earlier that the twisted irony here is that one of the main checks and controls on this being pushed, especially if there is financial incentive such as scholarships, grants, job opportunities, is the same trans shaming this type of ruling is meant to allay.

Worth noting in this context that in 2007 Congress was on the cusp of passing LGB employment rights in the form of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act but the effort failed because of activists' insistence on adding gender identity to the legislation:

ENDA was first introduced 30 years ago. In all that time, it only protected sexual orientation and never included gender identity. This year, that changed, and gender identity was added to the bill. Coincidentally, this year is also the first time that ENDA actually has a real chance of passing both the House and Senate -- but only if gender identity isn't in the bill. So the bill's author, openly gay Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., dropped the transgendered from the bill, and all hell broke loose. Gay activists and 220 national and local gay rights groups angrily demanded that gender identity be put back in the bill, guaranteeing its defeat for years to come. Many of them, suddenly and conveniently, found all sorts of "flaws" with legislation that they had embraced the previous 29 years. They convinced House Democratic leaders to delay action on ENDA till later in October. They'd rather have no bill at all than pass one that didn't include the transgendered.

www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/

The whole piece is really, really worth a read.

The bill passed the House but didn't get out of the Senate.

The WOLF video Grinitch linked to is worth watching.

Their main concern is that this ruling reifies 'transgender status' as a protected category under sex discrimination law, without defining 'transgender status'. Essentially the court has decided to create a new protected category that is based on someone's claim to be a sex that they aren't. It's not about dress codes, which are barely mentioned in the ruling.

They've introduced this idea that you can 'identify as' something that they acknowledge that you are not, which is just strange... Aimee Stephens just sent his employer a letter, and I guess this is sufficient to make the entire US government, every employer, every client, every business agree that someone is a sex, that everyone knows that they aren't. (25.20).*

Although the ruling specifies that this only applies to employment law, lower courts could decide that the reasoning is broadly applicable to other statutes. (Also, as Grinitch pointed out, employment law covers some instances where sex is relevant, e.g. rape crisis counsellor, prison guard, beauty therapist, professional athlete, where sex distinctions may now be illegal.)

This leaves the door open for lower courts to decide that, for instance, a male athlete who wants to compete against females has the right to do so if he claims 'transgender status'. To refuse him entry into the female category would be a form of sex discrimination against him. And so on for all areas of single-sex provision.

You can bet the ACLU will take this and run with it.

In the video, one of the WOLF lawyers also points out that even if SCOTUS eventually clarifies that single-sex provision is lawful under Title IX (and there's no guarantee they will), it often takes years, even a decade or longer, for a test case to reach the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile the lower courts are free to wreak havoc on single-sex provision, by interpreting it as a form of sex discrimination against persons who claim transgender status.

*Interestingly, I saw a conservative legal commentator chide the ADF (the group representing the employers in the Stephens case) for failing to challenge the ACLU's lawyers to define 'gender identity' during the arguments. He said in the future lawyers need to zero in on this point, because everything hinges on the fact that 'gender identity' has no objective definition.

That was an informative clarification FWRLurker .

All that to say This level of detail And analysis of the extremely reasonable middle ground SCOTUS poses here is being actuvely ignored by both the right and the left on this issue. The left is saying “Gender ID is protected by title VII, hurray!!” And the right is saying “they’re coming for sports and bathrooms next!!” When neither of those things are accurate readings of the ruling IMO.

Activist and lawyers will of course Use the Parts of the language that Best helps their argument. That’s how this works. I’m going to continue to be Extremely relieved by this very careful and conservative ruling which Re establishes, That sex exists, from birth as either male or female, and that a persons sex should not be the basis of employment discrimination.

Just to clarify. I think that the dress codes question can quite plainly use the language in this ruling as precedent. The reason is because The argument in favor of Aimee being discriminated due, in part, to sex is based on Aimee being MALE, and that if Aimee had been female, dressing in women’s attire would not have been an issue.

The ruling explicitly did NOT use the Twisted reasoning put forth By Aimee Stevenson’s lawyers which claimed Aimee is now female and was “assigned male at birth”. Instead the ruling confirms that Aimee is male. Transwomen are according to this ruling, Natal Males, which is also the plain definition of sex put forth by SCOTUS here.

This also helps support (Not harm) the idea that transwomen could be rightly excluded from “bona fide” sex segregated employment, given it establishes that trans women are male according to the Title VII.

Also the fact that there has been no clarification or definition of transition. Unlike biological sex where there is an objective measure and definition...XX, XY, with gender identity, there is none. While that defined line may not be material in many situations, it becomes crucial in others such as healthcare, prisons, sports. Different jurisdictions are left to defining it how they wish, which again, in most cases is a non issue, but in others, is very important, especially as it applies to High School sports where most participants are below the age where doctors will perform any parts of transition.

As has been seen in the most recent challenges to abortion law in the US, never underestimate the creativity and lengths some groups will go to to circumvent the intent of a law or ruling.

Where you see plain language I see countless ways of interpreting the language of the judgement to argue "the law now says that sex includes gender identity".

I read it as an exercise in muddled reasoning. In search of a just result sure, but that doesn't make it plain.

The test is how much trans activists and human rights organisations will use the judgement to force women's single sex spaces to open up to transwomen.

An example of my concern as it happens with US law, and not directly related, but a good example of unintended consequences and uses...

The Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare if you will, has a provision allowing parents to keep their kids on their insurance policies up until age 26 if they so choose, and the insurance company must comply. My state interpreted that within Family courts to mean that divorced parents could be ordered to keep their children on their policy until age 26, and not only could they be so ordered, that is now the courts default position.

I just cannot see given the plain language in the ruling That dress codes being enforced sex specifically could be legal.

The simple language ruling emphasizes that these cases are a simple inprepretarion of the law. The criteria are only that ther person would not have been fired but for, in part, their sex.

Imagine the woman (No gender ID) who refuses to follow the female dress code but instead follows the male dress code and is fired. But for being female she Would not have been fired.

The ruling also goes into the fact that none of this actually has to do with gender id of the person but rather only with the employers choice to discriminate, in part, based on sex.

Even if it’s not been tested this is a MAJOR precedent against sex specific dress codes and wolf should push the law further in that direction by supporting any such law suit.

Yes, unintended consequences.

In the current atmosphere, I doubt very much that companies and organizations will default to protecting women and girls amidst the confusion.

If I'm getting this right WoLF's concern is not with what the decision itself has said but what it hasn't said and how others might interpret what is there and what don't there.

So there's a job to do in dissemination of clear info on what the decision does and does not say. It really feels like they are muddying waters right now and handing a bunch of avenues to willfully misinterpret the decision on a plate.