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/

grinitch Thanks for posting this-do you know if Stephens has a GRC (do they even exist in America?) I thought that in the olden days, when men underwent reassignment surgery, they had to sign a declaration acknowledging that although they would now be legally the other sex, they hadn't actually changed sex.
Either way, biological sex is definitely different to gender identity. However much a man really really wants to be a woman-its simply impossible.....

So wait - a male bodied person who says they are female was fired for refusing to wear a ‘male’ uniform at a funeral home. A uniform that they would have known about fire taking the job I assume.

So I’m guessing black trousers and jacket, maybe a shirt and tie. I’d wear that IN A FUNERAL HOME. Where I was comforting the grieving and making their day go smoothly as possible. Has this person not an ounce of common sense or understanding? Or is it all about them?

Welcome to the world of women then. I remember my MDs secretary being send home to change one day for daring to wear trousers to work (this was the 1990s).

happydappy2, there isn't such a thing as a GRC in the US. Because our system is a federal one, legal recognition of "acquired gender" varies widely from state to state and even municipality to municipality. I'm not sure whether some of Stephens' documents, like a driver's license, say M or F.

Some more explanation from WoLF's blog (rebutting a Vox article in which a gender activist accused them of transphobia and wanting to enforce sex stereotypes):

As we noted in the brief that hardly any of the gender activists commenting on it seem to have read: “If Aimee Stephens wished to challenge the legality of sex-specific dress codes under Title VII, h[ ] could have done so. Instead, h[ ] is attempting to redefine the term “sex” to mean “gender identity” under federal civil rights law, and potentially throughout the U.S. Code, and for every person in the U.S.”

This case has been presented by several commentators who should know better as being about whether women can be fired for not being “girly” enough. Yet sex-based dress codes, per se, are not questioned in any of the plaintiff’s challenges or lower court rulings.

Here’s what’s really being decided in Harris: Is sex the property by which an animal is male (producing small, motile gametes,) or female (producing large, immobile gametes,) or is it a state of mind with no possible objective definition, that any person can claim at will?
womensliberationfront.org/vox-needs-a-fact-checker/
*I have redacted the sexed pronouns WoLF use for fear that this would otherwise be deleted.

Just bullies.

If you are grieving the last thing you need is someone ‘call me ma’am’ing you. Have some bloody compassion. This is it - self-centred, world revolving around them and their thoughts types.

Although Twitter would have you believe that just about everyone in the world is trans, the reality is a very small number of people are. Everyone knows someone who is gay, but trans people are rare. It’s a strange experience to encounter someone breaking gender norms to that degree. Camp men and butch women have laid the ground, but it takes getting used to.
I have encountered one trans person in my life. They ran a shop. My biggest concern was to try to carry on as normal, not appearing to gawp or be rude but I was aware I had done a double take.
I don’t know how I’d do coming in as a customer in a funeral home. I know for sure my father would do very very badly. I can see why the owner of the business didn’t support Stephens’ transition.
But isn’t that transphobic for real? Do we accept people’s right to present as gender non- conforming and overcome our sense of “this is weird” or not?
Do we sack trans teachers because people will be weirded? Shop assistants?
How weird is too weird to be protected?

It boils down to a male bodied person wanting to dress ‘like a woman’. Yes you can sensibly think ‘I need to wear a uniform that is somber and respectful’. They can choose not to wear a skirt - lots of women do. I’m sure many women undertakers dress down, down scale their makeup, cover tattoos, wear ‘simple’ jewellery and tie their hair up in a simple style. They don’t demand the ‘right’ to wear jeans and T-shirts because that’s what they feel comfortable and ‘the authentic me’ in.

How weird is too weird to be protected?

Again, though, this is not the issue being contested in court. Had Stephens brought a case objecting to employers' sex-based dress codes, I suspect Stephens would be getting a lot more support from feminists. Instead, Stephens seeks to have the Supreme Court recognize Stephens' sex, in law, as female, based on self-identification.

If Democrats retain the House and win the Senate and Presidency in 2020, they will enact the (US) Equality Act, making self-ID the law of the land, without exemptions.

This case is a different, judicial prong of the attack on female people as a sex class under US law. If the Court rules that self-ID "gender identity" is indeed the same as "sex," it will erase female people as a civil rights class in one fell swoop. The CT female athletes will have no case under Title IX; the AK women's shelter will be forced to include the violent male person who turned up at their door. Women will have no right to request a female health provider. Women's scholarships and opportunities will be open to male people. All single-sex spaces and services will become mixed-sex overnight. That is why this case is important, not because of the sensitivities involved in working a customer-facing job in a funeral home.

I read the article today in the Guardian and something this person said has made me think because it is the second time I have read it in as many days.
Aimee Stephens says they 'felt different'. The transboy in the article I read yesterday said they 'felt different'. But felt different to what?
I can't understand what the comparator is to feel different from?

Who the hell doesn’t grow up feeling ‘different’ or out of step?

The Guardian article is really quite misleading: it doesn’t make clear GrinitchSpinach‘s point about the case being a Trojan horse to undermine sex-based rights.
I am embarrassed by my failure to analyse properly. Thanks for clarifying GrinitchSpinach.

LordProfFekko: particularly women, because femininity is designed so you can’t perform it “right”: being unhappy is written into it.

I am embarrassed by my failure to analyse properly. Thanks for clarifying GrinitchSpinach.

Good gracious, don't be! Personally I believe this particular case has been pursued because it muddies the waters on the surface; because a leftist person's natural reaction will be "Why can't everyone just wear what he or she prefers? Right wingers and their intolerance..." It takes looking into the details to see that the arguments advanced here are in fact a 'Trojan Horse,' as you put it so aptly.

femininity is designed so you can’t perform it “right”: being unhappy is written into it.
Ohhhhh yeah.

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?

You collect Butler Points to level up. You need 2 million to upgrade to MQSFSR. You also must have the 'lawsuit feat', the 'called someone a nazi on twitter feat' and have unlocked at least two gaslighting achievements. It takes years of dedication to reach MQSFSR.

Alternatively you can just identify as MQSFSR, obviously.

Thanks for posting this. The stakes seem very high indeed.

Trans does seem to be a very well-funded vehicle for potentially removing women's sex-based rights.

Feels a bit like one of those films with a twist where we in fact find it's a highly conservative right-wing funding the trans lobby so that they can remove women's rights.

I remember this case when it first surfaced. Reality is, if you work for a conservative employer in most of the US they really can tell you what you can and can't wear. Disney has rules about what kinds of tights female employees in the offices must wear. This person's only hope of winning rests on the idea that trans people are different somehow and their discomfort is different to and more important than anyone else's discomfort.

If there's any place I'd actually accept very conservative rules about how employees dress it's an undertakers. The feelings of the grieving families should always come first.

donquixotedelamancha Is there a certificate? Otherwise how do you know how many Butler points you have?

donquixotedelamancha Is there a certificate?

It's an app. Only available on I phones. As well as tracking points you can set it to auto-tweet 'nazi' at prominent women periodically, share hate lists between contacts and get updates on which new genders have been discovered.

Incidentally, in the help section it mentions that Genderism Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Scientology Plc- I didn't know that.

My POV here is that it should be unreasonable to require a sex specific dress code, and that this should be the SOLE basis of the lawsuit. Keep pushing on that angle, including the great suffering that wearing masculine clothing causes to your psyche and every feminist will support you.

Tell women that they should still have to wear skirts AND in addition are required to accept that men are sometimes women...? No.

Whether right or not, there is a perception that a male person wearing feminine clothing is doing it for a fetish.

A lot of people would find that disrespectful at a funeral. They're the ones in grief. Their feelings should be respected.

I suppose it's too much to hope that Aimee turns up to court dressed as JY did when doing that presentation to the council, in an evening dress, tiara, with chicken fillets popping out of the top of the dress?

Derrick Jensen of Deep Green Resistance interviews Natasha Chart and Kara Dansky of Women's Liberation Front on the Harris case and their general activism for women's sex-based rights:

(about an hour long)