SCOTUS to weigh if sex also includes gender and sexuality

[TheCatt]

Supreme Court takes LGBT employment discrimination case(s).

The cases center on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of "sex." The justices will consider whether the term covers sexual orientation and gender identity -- a question over which lower courts have divided.

I understand that gender identity is a relatively new concept in the past 50 years, but I feel that if Congress wants it, or sexuality, to be part of the CRA, then they have to amend the CRA.

SCOTUS will hear in October, and decide... eventually.

[Leisher]

I would love to hear a legal argument that explains how there are more than 2 sexes.

Also, if this goes through, won't straight white males be the only type of person without government protection, and thus, suggest they need protection?

[TheCatt]

I would love to hear a legal argument that explains how there are more than 2 sexes.

I think you can get a biological argument. From a sex perspective, there are 2 sexes that the vast majority of people fall under, then a small minority that have various intersex characteristics.

Gender, being a mental/social construct, is theoretically unlimited.

Also, if this goes through, won't straight white males be the only type of person without government protection, and thus, suggest they need protection?

No, white is also covered as part of race, and males are already covered via discrimination based on sex.

[Leisher]

I think you can get a biological argument. From a sex perspective, there are 2 sexes that the vast majority of people fall under, then a small minority that have various intersex characteristics.

I am willing to add a box for hermaphrodite, but let's be fair, they can just check both or either.

Gender, being a mental/social construct, is theoretically unlimited.

And that statement alone is why it doesn't merit protected status.

No, white is also covered as part of race, and males are already covered via discrimination based on sex.

So everyone is already covered? When everyone is covered, why do we need more protection?

[TheCatt]

So everyone is already covered? When everyone is covered, why do we need more protection?

I cannot tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.

People are covered for their race, and their sex. You cannot fire someone just for being white/black/male/female/intersex/multiracial/etc.

You can fire them for being straight/lesbian/gay.

[Leisher]

I cannot tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.

Not intentionally, but here's why:

You can fire them for being straight/lesbian/gay.

Not where I live. I remember a specific instance back at OAPI, post Gordon and Cake, when a redheaded IT guy was fired. He visited a lawyer to sue and the guy laughed at him because Ohio is a "right to work" state and you can be fired for any reason. Plus, he told him "You're a white male", so you're screwed. Thing is the IT guy then revealed to the lawyer he was gay. Now the lawyer had cause to sue, and if I remember correctly, they settled out of court. Funniest part is the person who fired the ginger was herself a lesbian.

So what am I missing here? Is it not a national thing, and thus, there's the distinction?

[TheCatt]

So what am I missing here? Is it not a national thing, and thus, there's the distinction?

It is certainly not a national thing. Ohio has a patchwork of laws due to cities.

[Leisher]

In that case, yes, national laws would be fine.

On one stipulation: This had better not turn into a "fucking kids/animals" should be protected, which is EXACTLY what some folks are trying to push.

[TheCatt]

In that case, yes, national laws would be fine.

On one stipulation: This had better not turn into a "fucking kids/animals" should be protected, which is EXACTLY what some folks are trying to push.

My default response is "We have other laws for that," but I'm not really sure. I just assume.

[Leisher]

So what am I missing here? Is it not a national thing, and thus, there's the distinction?

It is certainly not a national thing. Ohio has a patchwork of laws due to cities.

Going back to this, Ohio is leading the nation in laws regarding tolerance at the workplace? WTF? This was back in the 90s!

[TheCatt]

I understand that gender identity is a relatively new concept in the past 50 years, but I feel that if Congress wants it, or sexuality, to be part of the CRA, then they have to amend the CRA.

SCOTUS will hear in October, and decide... eventually.

This is why I'm not a SCOTUS analyst. SCOTUS says sexuality is covered by Title VII of the CRA.