Breast-Feeding Mom Loses Discrimination Case Because Men Can Lactate Too

[SillyJelly]

Sorry if this has been posted before, I couldn't see it.

So fed up of people claiming 'scare-mongering' when this stuff is already happening!

Article here : www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/02/04/angela_ames_sex_discrimination_case_breast_feeding_mom_loses_because_men.html

Good grief.

Yes - this is the future of women's rights under the new gender ideology. i.e. we won't have any.

I've seen this, but it's from 2015 and google throws nothing up about 'Angela Ames'.

Is it genuine?

Yes - this is the future of women's rights under the new gender ideology. i.e. we won't have any

No it isn't. The case is 3 years old and relates to the law in one US state.

It is not how discrimination law / prorection of maternity rights applu in the UK or EU , now or if self ID were to come in

I read the case summary and can’t see any reference to men lactating. Can anyone point it out to me?

I don't think that's the reason she lost the case but the legal team said that if their reasons hadn't worked, that could have been a reason.

I posted about it here, at the time, and someone with legal knowledge said it wouldn't work here, because it's not based on sex, it's actually based on breast feeding rights, without actually mentioning the sex of the person doing the breastfeeding.

I don't think that was to accommodate 'men' breastfeeding. Just the way it was worded.

But, of course, sex is being screwed over as a protected characteristic, because, as we know, men can acquire it and get all women shortlists on the back of it.

Sorry, didn't realise this had been discussed.

This is old.

The "men can lacate too" was not part of the judgement, or official reason, but was in the comments.

Any laws written around "men" and "women" - will be up for grabs / meaningless / easily argued against - and probably can be already TBH.

So, the fact that X women have been found guilty of rape in 2017 is the type of thing that we see. In UK (England & Wales) rape requires a penis. The law is framed in terms of X penetrates Y with his penis type stuff. Now we find that actually X can penetate Y with her penis and our female sex crime stats are all over the shop. Rape is the one where it's obvious due to the penis thing - other sex crimes will be skewed too (and many violent crime etc) but the laws are sex neutral and so no way of telling.

So for eg discriminaiton law says

"Direct sexual discrimination
This occurs when a man or woman is treated worse than someone of the opposite sex would be in a similar situation. This could include, for example, employing or promoting a male worker with fewer qualifications or less experience over a female worker, or demoting a man or woman upon their return from paternity or maternity leave."

If a company has, or can show that they would, have promoted a TIM in these circs then they cannot be guilty of sex discrimination. If a TIM is already in a role (maybe trans-ing after getting there) then they can demonstrate that the do not discriminate on the grouds of sex.

Of course sex is different to gender however, TIMs with GRC are female in law as I understand it, and I would imagine that with the muddying over gender / sex and TW are women etc then it isn't inconceivable for this to happen.

If an employer has 100 male and 100 female employees and acts in a certain way which disadvantages all their female staff and none of their male staff that act discriminates against a protected characteristic.

It does not stop being discriminatory just because say 5 men are also disadvantaged and 5 women aren't. The act is didcriminatory if one group is disproportionately adversely affected.

Maternity rights protect a person who has given birth and who is lactating. It matters not what that person identifies as.

So far as rape Scots law does not refer to he/his/him/. It is a person with a penis who commits the Act. English law uses he/him/his- but there is no possibility of it being used as a defence that the statute refers to he and the accused is a she.

Direct discrimination can be against individuals.

It is not only about class actions eg all the women on the tills at tesco vs all the men in the warehouse.

I clearly said I was talking about teh england / wales rape law so why bring scotland up? Fact is that stats are skewed now because people who ID as women are being included in female crime stats. That is important.

So if a woman and a man go for a promotion
And the woman doesn't get it and claims sex discirmination because she is better qualified & etc
Then the fact that they have a couple of TIMs on the board ie women will be used to prove that they are not sexist when deciding who goes on the board. Because look >> women.

You're naive if you don't think that's going to happen.

I also care about women in other countries whose laws may be written based on the sex and not the characteristic.

Why wouldn't I?

I also care about women in other countries whose laws may be written based on the sex and not the characteristic.

Well yes, I agree with that. Women's plight across the globe should be the concern of every woman (or feminists).

And, it does seem like a slippery slope.

I have no doubt that the laws will be twisted to accommodate men further.

I can't think of a single benefit to women over gender identity politics. Not one. Only disadvantages.

So if a woman and a man go for a promotion
And the woman doesn't get it and claims sex discirmination because she is better qualified & etc
Then the fact that they have a couple of TIMs on the board ie women will be used to prove that they are not sexist when deciding who goes on the board. Because look >> women.

That is not correct. In the case of 2 people applying for a job and 1 being rejected solely because of a protected characteristic it makes no difference to the validity of the claim how many other people with that characteristics are employed.

I clearly said I was talking about teh england / wales rape law so why bring scotland up?

What point are you making ? Your statement Any laws written around "men" and "women" - will be up for grabs / meaningless / easily argued against - and probably can be already TBH is patently wrong using the wording of Scottish rape legislation and wrong in how English legislation is applied.