SCOTUS ruling on LBGT rights

[ProfessorSlocombe]

www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/gay-transgender-workers-supreme-court.html

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination, handing the movement for L.G.B.T. equality a stunning victory.

“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling.

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.

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.

@nauticant

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.

I think this is about spot on.

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

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.

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.

@Barracker

I had concerns about the ruling, having read the WoLF amicus brief some time back, but I wanted to await their thoughts and analysis on the ruling to ensure I fully understood. I spent a little time doing this yesterday, and actually, I think they have it right.

It's difficult and complicated to explain and I'm trying to think of a way to put it into the simplest terms.

1. Yes, the court upheld the proper definition of biological sex. (Good)
2. But they also upheld the legality of sex-based dress codes (bad)

But then, the bait and switch.

Stephens is male, as per the court's ruling.
So the male based legally enforceable dress code ought to apply to him.
And any other sex based right should relate to his male sex which the court established.

However, the court ruled it didn't.
His sex was male, but sex based rules applied to other males, yet not him. He had a right to the 'women's' dress code.
How is this possible, given 1 and 2?

Because rights that relate to sex have been transferred into rights that belong to gender identity.
It's not a sex based dress code any more.
It's a gender identity based dress code, for women (women now deemed to be an identity not a sex).

It's possible if you migrate a sex based rule:
(this rule is for biological females)
into a 'gender identity' rule
(this is for humans of both sexes with the gender identity 'woman')
By redefining a sex based term
(Women are adult females)
Into a gender identity term
(All women are now 'people who identify as such')
And throw in the kicker assumption
(By default if you are of the female biological sex, you are now presumed to be ALSO of the gender identity woman, unless you state otherwise)

If I understand this, it's similar to what has happened in the UK.

We went from
Sex exists, here are sex based rights and rules
To
Sex exists, also gender exists, all people of a sex are henceforth presumed to also possess gender, all former rules which once related to sex now relate to gender, gender outranks sex.

Thanks Barracker. That's the clearest explanation of concerns I've read (that someone like me can understand).

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 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 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.

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...

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)