Writing in a column for The Washington Post last summer, Stephens said she “would like to believe that the United States — and the Supreme Court — will see that transgender people should be able to live free from discrimination in the workplace and beyond.”
“No one should face discrimination because of who they are,” she wrote. “My case is about so much more than me — or even transgender people. It’s about anyone who has ever been told they are not enough of a man or not the right kind of a woman. It’s about anyone who has ever experienced sex discrimination. It’s about making sure the same thing doesn’t happen to someone else.”
May 13, 2020
"Aimee Stephens, the center of landmark transgender rights Supreme Court case, dies before the ruling."
WaPo reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
I'm sorry this person (see how I skipped the pronoun?) died, but the question is not whether "transgender people should be able to live free from discrimination in the workplace and beyond."
It's whether Congress, via what it passed in 1964, made that determination. And of course it did not.
Yes, diversity breeds adversity. However, Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic is a dysfunctional religious/ethical prescription. There are normal distributions (e.g. sex and gender), and it is readily acknowledged that there are more colors in the world than the bands in the transgender spectrum ("Rainbow").
> “No one should face discrimination because of who they are,”
Who they pretend to be
XX is not XY
Yeah, quite a statement from a person trying to make one type of victim more important than others.
I'm sick of gender duplicity. Screw them all. Equally.
What was the legal meaning of the word 'sex' when it used by Congress when it passed Title VII of the 1964 civil rights act?
Why should the legal meaning change today?
I could be quite supportive of trans rights to sensible employment protections, and I would be happy to support legislation that would guarantee those rights. But I am not in favor of SCOTUS decisions that pretend to understand that society has evolved.
Judges are the worst of the three branches of government to understand what direction society is moving, they are the farthest removed from the people as they are non elected lifetime positions.
I always replace she by he in transgender stories so I can understand it.
If it's a she arguing, the story makes no sense.
All animals are equal, but the dogs who used to be cats are more equal than others.
"Transgender female" = born male and remains a male but in a very confused state of mind who wants the entire world to conform to his notion of confusion.
AA, you might consider posting about a federal judge's bench order to lawyers on compelled speech. For more, go to Jacobson's post at,
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/05/connecticut-judge-rules-transgender-sprinters-competing-against-girls-cannot-be-called-males-in-court-or-else/
Be an Arab, be a Jew, be a boxing kangaroo,
I don't care. Vincent Fournier
Of course everyone should be free of discrimination. You should be judged b your employer according to your work. But she this person calls discrimination is really just complaining about being denied special privileges.
It’s about anyone who has ever been told they are not enough of a man or not the right kind of a woman.
That's nearly every man and every woman. That's life.
I guess part of the question is, would person X have been hired if they originally presented themselves as they eventually wanted to present themselves? As well as how that presentation affects the position.
If he/she were a teleworker, no big deal. Now imagine a 6'4" 240 male bodybuilder deciding he is a woman and wants to work as a Hooters waitress. Should THAT be protected?
The story in question shows the person in a wheelchair, later in life. It says that the firing occurred in 2013. It does not show a picture of how this person looked at that time, as a woman. This person represented the business, was a public face of this business. To announce to the boss that they are now female and will wear a dress while representing the business could likely be too much.
I understand that this person was in pain and wanted to eliminate that pain. Why does their choice have to result in others now putting up with pain?
What did this person do after they were dismissed? Did they find alternate employment in the same field, as a woman? Did they do something else entirely?
I've wondered why Trump and the Republicans don't make transgenderism a political issue to campaign on. Yes, transgender adults should be treated with dignity. But prepubescent children "choosing" their gender, and suffering irreversible physical damage? Boys competing against girls in high school sports? Men being allowed in women's bathrooms? How many Americans are truly on board with that? Surely even some liberals and feminists would say it's gone too far.
"I'm sorry this person (see how I skipped the pronoun?) died . . . "
Not "perdaughter"? "Per-son"? Gawd, it's everywhere!
"Of course everyone should be free of discrimination. You should be judged by your employer according to your work."
The pedant in me (also known as "me") says being judged according to your work IS discrimination; but it's (at least for now) a legally and socially permissible basis for discrimination.
Other types of discrimination (race is the easist example) are, by broad consensus, inappropriate, and thus outlawed by Congress. Transgender discrimination? It'd by fun to watch Congress take it up, but it hasn't so far.
It wouldn't be wise to make transgenderism a major issue - not enough people care or want to think about transgenderism - but if people know where candidates stand and agree with them it can't hurt.
I'm sick of gender duplicity. Screw them all. Equally.
Political congruence or "=".
Does her death moot the case?
"... not the right kind of a woman."
Would that be a woman with a penis?
I'm sorry he's dead.
If you don't have female genitalia, then you aren't "the right kind of woman." Period. Full stop. And no government agency's proclamation is ever going to change that.
What was the legal meaning of the word 'sex' when it used by Congress when it passed Title VII of the 1964 civil rights act?
Why should the legal meaning change today?
Perhaps Title VII of the 1964 civil rights act is a living document that holds a dynamic meaning, evolving and adapting to new circumstances, without the need to be formally amended. Makes as much sense to treat a law that way as it does to so treat the Constitution that provided government with the power to pass said law.
“No one should face discrimination because of who they are”
True. Girls and women should have equal opportunity to participate in sports, without having to compete with biological males. M-to-F trannies infringe on women's rights.
I'm confused?
Did the law say that cis people could dress in work inappropriate attire?
And that trannies couldn't?
Or was it, that what HE was complaining about was that the law DID NOT discriminate?
The compassionate thing to do is to get these people the mental health assistance that they need.
Not to convince them that their condition is "normal".
Insert Ben Shapiro's story about his uncle with schizophrenia here ...
Some people imagine discrimination. Everyone firmly believes that they were passed over for promotion, deserve more pay, and a more attractive spouse. 80% of people believe their children are smarter than average. Maybe, maybe not. But if you are in some special class like trans it is easier to convince yourself you were treated unfairly. Perhaps this person was overly demanding, annoying, unreasonable, demanded special pronouns, and acted crazy. Good odds on this because we know that trans people are very likely to have a mental illness (in addition to gender dysphoria).
The idea that you "deserve" stuff leads many millenials to show up to an office job looking like slobs (it worked in college!). Or to be rude to customers.
I suppose the case is now moot, and no ruling will be made?
"Aimee Stephens" but it's ok to call me Homophobic and Racist because I'm a Christian, Straight, White Male - LOL! Tribalism will kill us just like those countries in Africa. Truly amazing what propoganda does to believers.
“No one should face discrimination because of who they are,” she wrote.
She just lost the Liberals.
They're all about deciding who can and can't be discriminated against.
The article is behind a paywall. Who discriminated against poor Aimee and how how does she allege that she was discriminated against?
“who they are”
Said without irony, by a person who claims they are a different sex/gender than their chromosomes would indicate.
It's about forcing people to publicly affirm things that they do not believe and that violate their religious principles. That is what it is for for, it has no other purpose.
I wonder who will be the mortician.
their religious principles
The dignity of feminine females is a religious issue. The mitigation of progressive confusion and corruption (e.g. medical) is a religious issue. That said, the Pro-Choice religious/ethical philosophy is a poor prescription.
Transgender discrimination? It'd by fun to watch Congress take it up, but it hasn't so far.
It has under the State-established Progressive Church, and specifically the Twilight Amendment including political congruence ("="). They may want to discriminate between bands (e.g. homosexual) in the transgender spectrum, but they will be hard pressed to apply their Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic religious/ethical standard.
Most of our "civil rights" laws are modelled on the laws that were intended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race -- i.e., discrimination against Negros/African Americans/Colored People/Blacks/etc. If we're being serious, we can all agree that there's NO LEGITIMATE REASON to treat a Black employee or prospective employee differently from a similar White employee or prospective employee. There's no legitimate reason for a store, restaurant, motel, or other place of public accommodation to treat a Black customer differently from a White customer. But that doesn't mean that there's no legitimate reason to treat a prospective employee, customer, etc. differently depending on his/her "gender identity". It depends on the job, etc., whether gender identity legitimately matters. So the legislature needs to address whether and when to prohibit treating people differntly based on their "gender identity". Just applying the race model doesn't do that.
Personally, I have three granddaughters who are athletes. I don't think they should have to compete against boys who "identify" as girls.
She died at 59. So young for a woman!
Post a Comment