The world's largest companies, worth trillions of dollars, file amicus curiae brief in transgender bathroom case

[QuietContraryMary]

See here:

assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Adams-Amicus-Brief.pdf?_ga=2.120105480.1087494444.1551613893-770574290.1551613893

Basically tech companies including Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, Tumblr, Yelp, Spotify, Patreon, Ebay, Lyft, Airbnb, IBM, and others, as well as some other woke signallers such as Deutsche Bank, GSK and others.

The brief:

"This amicus brief is submitted on behalf of some of the largest and most wellknown companies in the United States to address the rights of transgender students under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause. A complete listing of Amici has been provided to the Court. Amici share core values of equality, respect, and dignity for all people, regardless of their gender identity. Amici support and defend public policies that protect civil rights and foster acceptance and equal treatment for all of their employees, their customers, and the families of both. Amici recognize that diversity and inclusion are good for business.
Discrimination in any form against transgender, gender non-binary, and intersex people imposes enormous productivity costs on Amici and their employees and undermines their ability to attract, retain, and remain competitive with the best talent"

The case relates to a biological female who identifies as a boy and is only allowed to use gender-neutral or female bathrooms. It is claimed that there is a shortage of gender-neutral facilities meaning delays as a result.

I would note that Title IX was passed in 1972 to protect against sex discrimination and I am not aware of any precedent extending it to 'gender', though Obama did attempt to do so by Executive Order, this has been revoked by Trump.

This brief is by the HRC, which I'm surprised to learn is actually an LGBT charity as it seems to mostly address T stuff.

Mary, I have no clue about this. What is an amicus brief, and why is it important? I've a vague idea about Title IX, but am unsure of what that means in this context.

Amicus Briefs

Friendly knickers?

An amicus brief is a paper submitted by a person or company which is not a party to the proceedings but have an interest in the outcome.

That is strange mary

Lobbyists then?

Wonder why they used a ftm as their test case?

FTM are no threat to men. There's just the privacy issue.

They won't be happy until they have ground us into the dust.

The claimed purpose of the brief (and you can read it if you wish in the link provided) is that the companies in question have an interest in transgender people not feeling discriminated against, traumatised, stigmatised, etc., by such rulings, because they employ transgender people, and if transgender people feel bad they will not be as effective as employees, which will cost them money.

That's the nutshell argument for them having some sort of stake in it.

Obviously it's highly tendentious and the real purpose is to try and virtue signal and influence the courts with their trillions of dollars.

Title IX is a piece of legislation passed in 1972 in the US protecting people from discrimination on the grounds of sex (mostly against women and girls) by public bodies. This includes schools. Recently TRAs and the Democrats have claimed that it includes 'gender', even though there was no such concept in 1972.

someone on here pointed out a while ago that it's also about destroying women as a sex class to prevent future class action lawsuits, the main vehicle for labour rights in the US

There are a few of these transgender bathroom policy cases currently in US courts.
I'm seeing some names of companies that have been linked to sex-based discrimination and harassment cases in recent years. Why are they so invested in this transgender rights case?
I'm looking forward to Silicon Valley companies joining an amicus brief supporting women's reproductive rights.

someone on here pointed out a while ago that it's also about destroying women as a sex class to prevent future class action lawsuits, the main vehicle for labour rights in the US

Sounds about right

someone on here pointed out a while ago that it's also about destroying women as a sex class to prevent future class action lawsuits, the main vehicle for labour rights in the US

This is my thought too. It will remove so many rights and the ability to organise. Crack that, no more sexism! Or well... no more sexism cases. Then work on racism, and all the rest. It’s a test run for so many things and none of those things are good.

Wonder why they used a ftm as their test case?

I saw the Ruth Bader Ginsberg biopic recently. The first case they tried to start the ball rolling on overturning sex discrimination laws was a man (bachelor) caring for his elderly mother & ineligible for a tax deduction because the law assumed only widowers or women would need the deduction, ie no single man wiuld assume caring responsibilities. It was strategic because many similar cases with female litigants had been refused. (No one gave a fuck about women being discriminated against.) In this case, a media-friendly FTM case keeps the troubling “pervs masquerading as MtF trans using these laws” arguments at arms length.

There are a few of these transgender bathroom policy cases currently in US courts.

Might it be to prevent women bringing cases objecting to the changes that will inevitably be on the way?

Ironic that it was to protect women, but it would appear it has never been used to encourage more women to those companies.

So they’re worried that trans people feelings may be hurt and therefore not as good workers? Everyone else- ah suck it up!

We don’t want to spend more on trans toilets so we will fight to take away any sex- based rights. However, transwomen aren’t looking very nice at the moment so we’ll move the focus to transmen

Nah they are scared of bloody litigation. A group of highly vocal, highly egotistical, self-centred, aggressive, lawyered-up gits.

Companies, in general, have a vested interest in having as few laws as possible apply to them. They don't want to have regulations they have to check when they manage their workplaces. Almost any law is problematic from a bussiness perspective.

So they would want the legal requirement to insist people only use toilets according to their biological sex to be ruled unlawful. They would probably also not want a law requiring them to have all toilets be gender neutral, though the current climate would make it harder for them to fight that publicly.

Ahh. I think I take back my above argument. I thought this was one of the cases fighting against legal requirements to have bio-sex toilets. But it seems to be one about redefining title IX.

WoLF also filed an Amicus Brief.

Agree this is the endgame. Not only to destroy existing protections against discrimination, but also to destroy the ability of oppressed or vulnerable groups to organise at all by destroying their right to define themselves as belonging to a recognisable class.

I have to admit, I am struggling to see a motive beyond demonstrating publicly how inclusive and diversity-friendly these companies are.

Permitting transgender employees to use the bathroom of their gender identity (rather than gender-neutral bathrooms) would be a big upheaval and I can't imagine female or male employees being happy to share their bathrooms with transgender employees.

I am scratching my head a bit on this one.