A woman is whatever the relevant authority defines.
There is no definition of woman in the US constitution or in State or Federal Law. If you want "woman" defined, then pressure your political representatives.
A woman is whatever the relevant authority defines.
There is no definition of woman in the US constitution or in State or Federal Law. If you want "woman" defined, then pressure your political representatives.
Most words don't require legal definition. "Woman" isn't a legal term - unless it is made so. So do you want a bunch of politicians to tell you who or what you are?
But...there's an argument against the position I do agree with that I hope you or someone else will consider. Catholic hospitals do not perform vasectomy, based...on sincerely held religious belief. That can be viewed as a form of discrimination...but, so what? There are plenty of hospitals who don't filter that medical decision through religious principles. There are plenty of bakeries that don't care of their cakes celebrate same-sex weddings, transitioning, etc. Website developers, too.
Okay, where would it stop? Is it okay for a landlord to refuse someone rental because there are many other landlords? (This has happened to me decades ago. The "vacant" apartment suddenly got occupied as soon as I told my name to the landlord over the phone. I didn't dwell on that, and called the next landlord on the list.)
How about a hotel or a restaurant? I have been to small towns with one hotel or one restaurant. Is it okay because because you can always search for hotels and restaurants in "neighboring" towns?
Is it okay to deny someone employment because there are other employers? That's assuming there are many other similar positions available. That's not always the case.
The position you are presenting makes the assumption of perfect competition in every market. But perfect competition rarely exists in real life. There are limited number of sellers or buyers, there is imperfect information, there is high transaction cost, etc. Market is almost always imperfect in real life.
So you need legal protection against discrimination just like you need antitrust policy. And this is not giving special protection for the marginalized groups. When discrimination based on sexual orientation is banned, straight people are also protected.
You are raising valid points, but there's a tinge or contradiction to your own argument. Let's start there. You believe in anti-discrimination laws (for the record, I do, in part, probably not to the same extreme). But then you claim "this is not giving special protection to marginalized groups." That's confusing to me. There's nothing wrong with giving special protections to any group, marginalized or otherwise, if you feel it is the correct policy.
To answer your other point, you have to draw the line somewhere. But...discrimination is a fact of life, and I don't believe laws prevent it. I'm more inclined to believe they provide people relief through our legal system, which means lawsuits, which I'm not sure anyone wins, no matter the outcome. Employers discriminate all the time. Landlords are much worse. Both are held to strict legal standards.
I think your point that markets are imperfect is a fair and valid one, except I don't see how the law actually fixes the inherent flaws in our markets.
Maybe we can try to get back to the point...Rowling believes that there shouldn't be laws to enforce consequences for people who believe there are exactly two genders and that you can't change from one to the other. What do you think?
A woman is whatever the relevant authority defines.
There is no definition of woman in the US constitution or in State or Federal Law. If you want "woman" defined, then pressure your political representatives.
Most words don't require legal definition. "Woman" isn't a legal term - unless it is made so. So do you want a bunch of politicians to tell you who or what you are?
"Woman" absolutely is a term that requires a legal definition. Further to that, every organization must define what the word "Woman" means to them.
The NCAA must have its own definition of what a woman is so it can be decided who can compete in the women's category. If they don't then trans women will sue them if they are not allowed to compete with women.
Every sorority and every women's organization must in their bylaws define what the word "woman" means . If not they will be sued for discrimination if they refuse to accept trans women.
The states must define what a woman is or else trans prisoners will sue to be sent to women's jails instead of men's jails.
And so 4th.
DO I want politicians to define "woman" NO ! I never said so. I said those who want a standard definition of "woman" should petition their political leaders to enshrine whatever definition they like into the law or else we will keep having useless, inconsequential debates about what is a woman.
To put it plainly, it doesn't matter what anyone on Letsrun thinks on this issue. You want to fix it, talk to your leaders. Defining what a woman is on this forum is waste of time because there is no legal definition therefore NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT ANSWER OR THE CORRECT DEFINITION.
You are raising valid points, but there's a tinge or contradiction to your own argument. Let's start there. You believe in anti-discrimination laws (for the record, I do, in part, probably not to the same extreme). But then you claim "this is not giving special protection to marginalized groups." That's confusing to me. There's nothing wrong with giving special protections to any group, marginalized or otherwise, if you feel it is the correct policy.
To answer your other point, you have to draw the line somewhere. But...discrimination is a fact of life, and I don't believe laws prevent it. I'm more inclined to believe they provide people relief through our legal system, which means lawsuits, which I'm not sure anyone wins, no matter the outcome. Employers discriminate all the time. Landlords are much worse. Both are held to strict legal standards.
I think your point that markets are imperfect is a fair and valid one, except I don't see how the law actually fixes the inherent flaws in our markets.
Maybe we can try to get back to the point...Rowling believes that there shouldn't be laws to enforce consequences for people who believe there are exactly two genders and that you can't change from one to the other. What do you think?
Anti-discrimination law does not just protect the marginalized groups. It also protects the dominant groups. It also prohibits discrimination against straight people based on their sexual orientation.
And we should not have any laws to enforce consequences for people's beliefs. They could be criticized, scorned or shamed for expressing certain beliefs. But there should be legal consequences only when they act on their discriminatory beliefs. In cases of public figures, this includes encouraging people to take such actions through public statements.
JK Rowling really needs to find something else to fixate on, though. it's a little weird. she literally tweets about the subject every day like a crazy person.
Yes, and she has millions of women who support her. JKR knows that other women have lost their jobs, been doxxed, and been attacked for their views on trans ideology. Her wealth protects her from all of that.
A woman is whatever the relevant authority defines.
There is no definition of woman in the US constitution or in State or Federal Law. If you want "woman" defined, then pressure your political representatives.
A woman is what biology defines. JK Rowling a ⭐️ perhaps our greatest living woman, and definitely in the discussion.
Most words don't require legal definition. "Woman" isn't a legal term - unless it is made so. So do you want a bunch of politicians to tell you who or what you are?
"Woman" absolutely is a term that requires a legal definition. Further to that, every organization must define what the word "Woman" means to them.
The NCAA must have its own definition of what a woman is so it can be decided who can compete in the women's category. If they don't then trans women will sue them if they are not allowed to compete with women.
Every sorority and every women's organization must in their bylaws define what the word "woman" means . If not they will be sued for discrimination if they refuse to accept trans women.
The states must define what a woman is or else trans prisoners will sue to be sent to women's jails instead of men's jails.
And so 4th.
DO I want politicians to define "woman" NO ! I never said so. I said those who want a standard definition of "woman" should petition their political leaders to enshrine whatever definition they like into the law or else we will keep having useless, inconsequential debates about what is a woman.
To put it plainly, it doesn't matter what anyone on Letsrun thinks on this issue. You want to fix it, talk to your leaders. Defining what a woman is on this forum is waste of time because there is no legal definition therefore NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT ANSWER OR THE CORRECT DEFINITION.
Words have a meaning that doesn't depend on whether they are legal terms. We couldn't have any kind of conversation if that wasn't so. We don't "talk" in statutes.
A word such as "woman" will mean what it means to people - as JK Rowling shows - and they aren't necessarily going to accept what a bunch of partisan legislators tells them it should mean.
Yes, and she has millions of women who support her. JKR knows that other women have lost their jobs, been doxxed, and been attacked for their views on trans ideology. Her wealth protects her from all of that.
Roxy Music's "To Turn You On" from the early 1980s
Provided to YouTube by Universal Music GroupTo Turn You On · Roxy MusicAvalon℗ 1999 Virgin Records LimitedReleased on: 1999-01-01Producer, Associated Perfor...
with the lyrics remade/remodelled in honor of JK Rowling:
I could show you in some words As I’m wont to do A window on the world With a woman’s view From close up, insights I illume I’m an open book, clear-eyed Bright, nobody’s fool Misogyny it grieves me Won’t hold my tongue I’ll do anything to terf you on Anything to terf you on
It keeps raining down brickbats Sexist gender woo Women, kids, gays all set back Safeguards, rights in the loo
I could squawk “I’m all right Jack” If I wanted to Shrug “whatever” But I’ve probed, taken measure Duty has called I’ll do anything to terf you on Anything to terf you on
I could keep mum, tweet “who cares?” If I wanted to Still I’d wonder, How’s this fair? Women, children harmed Who’ll dare to speak up - who If not me - god help me Set right what’s wrong I’ll do anything to terf you on
They’ll scold me, they’ll stone me But I'll stay strong I’ll do anything to terf you on
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
You are raising valid points, but there's a tinge or contradiction to your own argument. Let's start there. You believe in anti-discrimination laws (for the record, I do, in part, probably not to the same extreme). But then you claim "this is not giving special protection to marginalized groups." That's confusing to me. There's nothing wrong with giving special protections to any group, marginalized or otherwise, if you feel it is the correct policy.
To answer your other point, you have to draw the line somewhere. But...discrimination is a fact of life, and I don't believe laws prevent it. I'm more inclined to believe they provide people relief through our legal system, which means lawsuits, which I'm not sure anyone wins, no matter the outcome. Employers discriminate all the time. Landlords are much worse. Both are held to strict legal standards.
I think your point that markets are imperfect is a fair and valid one, except I don't see how the law actually fixes the inherent flaws in our markets.
Maybe we can try to get back to the point...Rowling believes that there shouldn't be laws to enforce consequences for people who believe there are exactly two genders and that you can't change from one to the other. What do you think?
Anti-discrimination law does not just protect the marginalized groups. It also protects the dominant groups. It also prohibits discrimination against straight people based on their sexual orientation.
And we should not have any laws to enforce consequences for people's beliefs. They could be criticized, scorned or shamed for expressing certain beliefs. But there should be legal consequences only when they act on their discriminatory beliefs. In cases of public figures, this includes encouraging people to take such actions through public statements.
There is some vagueness in your reply, as I' having a hard time seeing how anti-discrimination laws protect "dominant" groups. The federal government literally enacts legislation that protects some groups and not others. If you don't believe me, walk into your breakroom at work and find the poster that says "equal pay is the law." It means you cannot pay a woman less than a man to do the same work. You cannot sue for gender discrimination if the roles are reversed, and, ironically, with many married couples today, they are.
Perhaps what you meant was that anti-discrimination laws are a net social good, even if they contain wrinkles of unfairness in the policies they drive. Fair enough...the idea behind federal statutes that prohibit gender discrimination in compensation is meant to encourage women to advance their careers. I think we both can agree that's an admirable goal.
Your last point about how laws shouldn't enforce consequences for beliefs unless they acted upon is very vague to me. How can we be sure that actions reflect beliefs? Rowling's case is instructive. She doesn't have a problem with trans people ("call yourself whatever you want, sleep with whomever you prefer") but was outraged when a fellow countrywide was fired for refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns.
You never really commented on Rowling's case, so I'd like to invite you to do so again.
Anti-discrimination law does not just protect the marginalized groups. It also protects the dominant groups. It also prohibits discrimination against straight people based on their sexual orientation.
And we should not have any laws to enforce consequences for people's beliefs. They could be criticized, scorned or shamed for expressing certain beliefs. But there should be legal consequences only when they act on their discriminatory beliefs. In cases of public figures, this includes encouraging people to take such actions through public statements.
There is some vagueness in your reply, as I' having a hard time seeing how anti-discrimination laws protect "dominant" groups. The federal government literally enacts legislation that protects some groups and not others. If you don't believe me, walk into your breakroom at work and find the poster that says "equal pay is the law." It means you cannot pay a woman less than a man to do the same work. You cannot sue for gender discrimination if the roles are reversed, and, ironically, with many married couples today, they are.
Perhaps what you meant was that anti-discrimination laws are a net social good, even if they contain wrinkles of unfairness in the policies they drive. Fair enough...the idea behind federal statutes that prohibit gender discrimination in compensation is meant to encourage women to advance their careers. I think we both can agree that's an admirable goal.
Your last point about how laws shouldn't enforce consequences for beliefs unless they acted upon is very vague to me. How can we be sure that actions reflect beliefs? Rowling's case is instructive. She doesn't have a problem with trans people ("call yourself whatever you want, sleep with whomever you prefer") but was outraged when a fellow countrywide was fired for refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns.
You never really commented on Rowling's case, so I'd like to invite you to do so again.
Anti-discrimination laws of course also protect the majority or those ostensibly in power or of privilege. You can not discriminate against someone because they are Christian or white male for example. The losers here may cry and wallow in self pity about how about how white males are discriminated against, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s illegal if provable as such.
Freedom of speech and expression is not protected when it is hate crime against individuals based on protected characteristics. Denying the identity of a trans person can be argued as comparable in hurt to calling blacks ni***rs or gays fa***ts. The opposite position in favor of freedom of speech can also be endlessly (and almost always frivolously) argued.
Can or should a person lose a job for misgendering a trans person? If it is a hate crime, then certainly yes because if it is, they can even go to jail for it whereas a job firing is usually just within the scope of a private enterprise, but misgendering currently is not a hate crime and whether or to what extent to prosecute it is for the courts to determine. Just firing an employee is protected by freedom of speech unless the firing itself is a crime against protected characteristics or the state is doing the firing to compel speech.
There is some vagueness in your reply, as I' having a hard time seeing how anti-discrimination laws protect "dominant" groups. The federal government literally enacts legislation that protects some groups and not others. If you don't believe me, walk into your breakroom at work and find the poster that says "equal pay is the law." It means you cannot pay a woman less than a man to do the same work. You cannot sue for gender discrimination if the roles are reversed, and, ironically, with many married couples today, they are.
Perhaps what you meant was that anti-discrimination laws are a net social good, even if they contain wrinkles of unfairness in the policies they drive. Fair enough...the idea behind federal statutes that prohibit gender discrimination in compensation is meant to encourage women to advance their careers. I think we both can agree that's an admirable goal.
Your last point about how laws shouldn't enforce consequences for beliefs unless they acted upon is very vague to me. How can we be sure that actions reflect beliefs? Rowling's case is instructive. She doesn't have a problem with trans people ("call yourself whatever you want, sleep with whomever you prefer") but was outraged when a fellow countrywide was fired for refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns.
You never really commented on Rowling's case, so I'd like to invite you to do so again.
Of course, men could sue their employers for gender discrimination if they are paid less for the same work. Whether they can win in the court is a different question. White people can also sue their employers for racial discrimination. A white professor recently won her lawsuit against a HBCU. A heterosexual person can sue their LGBTQ employer. Whether they can win is a different matter.
I will give you an example of someone's belief led to criminal conviction although he was not involved in direct action. Enrique Tarrio was convicted of seditious conspiracy although he was not anywhere near the Capitol on Jan. 6, because his followers were executing his orders. A random person calling for the obstruction of electoral vote counting on his social media account would not face the same consequence.