• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mia Wins!

crimresearch

Alumbrado
crimresearch
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
10,600
Not that Mia... This Mia:

An employer who discriminates against an employee or applicant on the basis of the person's gender identity is violating the prohibition on sex discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to an opinion issued on April 20 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The opinion, experts say, could dramatically alter the legal landscape for transgender workers across the nation.

The opinion came in a decision delivered on Monday, April 23, to lawyers for Mia Macy, a transgender woman who claims she was denied employment with the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) after the agency learned of her transition. It also comes on the heels of a growing number of federal appellate and trial courts deciding that gender-identity discrimination constitutes sex discrimination, whether based on Title VII or the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...



http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=7288
 
Huge win for transgender people in the US :)

Note that the case does not state that the ATF discriminated against Mia Macy, but that Mia Macy can actually file a discrimination case based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This has the effect of making sex discrimination inclusive to transgender people.

The courts ruling is based on numerous precedents which define the meaning of the word "sex" as physical sex, gender, and gender stereotypes. Consequence of the ruling should protect trans people across the board in public and private employment.
 
Dessi said:
Huge win for transgender people in the US :)

Note that the case does not state that the ATF discriminated against Mia Macy, but that Mia Macy can actually file a discrimination case based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This has the effect of making sex discrimination inclusive to transgender people.

The courts ruling is based on numerous precedents which define the meaning of the word "sex" as physical sex, gender, and gender stereotypes. Consequence of the ruling should protect trans people across the board in public and private employment.
Click to expand...
And hopefully, added impetus to extend equal protection to other forms of alternative sexuality as well.
 
Cool. If this continues, perhaps we won't need to struggle with a non-inclusive EDNA?
 
crimresearch said:
Like sexual orientation, be it homosexual, or bisexual, polyamory, and kink.

None of these currently are protected classes like religion, race, or ethnicity.
Click to expand...

OK, I get homosexual and bisexual. I don't believe that sexual orientation matters in the slightest to one's employability.

You'll have to explain why polyamorous and kink should be specifically protected classes, though.
 
xjx388 said:
OK, I get homosexual and bisexual. I don't believe that sexual orientation matters in the slightest to one's employability.

You'll have to explain why polyamorous and kink should be specifically protected classes, though.
Click to expand...
Who people choose to consensually fall in love, or just plain have a sexual relationship with, shouldn't be a valid reason to fire them, or deny them full rights as a citizen.

The current mechanism in place, is to include those who have a history of being discriminated against, and spell out that belonging to that class gives protection against discrimination.

Part of that history has been labelling anything other than the heterosexual missionary position as a crime and a mental disorder.
That has gradually lifted for some but not all people, and I would like to see a continuation. Sadism and masochism will apparently be de-stigmatized in the coming DSM-V, all of these look like a good start to me.
 
xjx388 said:
OK, I get homosexual and bisexual. I don't believe that sexual orientation matters in the slightest to one's employability.

You'll have to explain why polyamorous and kink should be specifically protected classes, though.
Click to expand...

If it was considered when the rule was originally created, yes. Otherwise it should be specifically amended.

It's bad enough the execitive branch is making these regulations rather than Congress, trying to interpret what Congress meant. Now you have judges trying to interpret what the executive branch meant when trying to interpret what Congress meant.

And adding to it. Does anybody think if this was brought up in 1964 that it would be included?

I point this out because if you think it is Ok for people not one, but two layers removed from the branch Constitutionally charged with making rule you go to jail for for disobeying, is a good thing just because you approve of the rule, then it will bite you in the ass one day and you will have no philosophical defense since you accept the principle of twice-removed chin rubbing as de facto legislator.

Evidence that people playing fast and loose with the rules of lawmaking will turn out bad eventually? All of human history.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
If it was considered when the rule was originally created, yes. Otherwise it should be specifically amended.

It's bad enough the execitive branch is making these regulations rather than Congress, trying to interpret what Congress meant. Now you have judges trying to interpret what the executive branch meant when trying to interpret what Congress meant.
Click to expand...
Why bad? Determining legislative intent instead of enforcing laws as they are literally written, has been part of the job of both of the other branches for a long time.
 
crimresearch said:
Who people choose to consensually fall in love, or just plain have a sexual relationship with, shouldn't be a valid reason to fire them, or deny them full rights as a citizen.

The current mechanism in place, is to include those who have a history of being discriminated against, and spell out that belonging to that class gives protection against discrimination.

Part of that history has been labelling anything other than the heterosexual missionary position as a crime and a mental disorder.
That has gradually lifted for some but not all people, and I would like to see a continuation. Sadism and masochism will apparently be de-stigmatized in the coming DSM-V, all of these look like a good start to me.
Click to expand...
I don't know . . . I can't think of a situation in which a person who practices BDSM (for example) would be fired simply because of their sexual practices. I can think of plenty of occurrences where a homosexual or TG person would be fired simply for being who they are and I believe they should be protected because it's a logical extension of other protections we currently give (race, religion, etc). But I can't make the logical leap to say that the fact that you practice certain behaviors should make you a protected class.

Why not protect smokers, racists, coin collectors, ad nauseum?
 
xjx388 said:
I don't know . . . I can't think of a situation in which a person who practices BDSM (for example) would be fired simply because of their sexual practices.
Click to expand...
I'm not willing to search for it while I'm at work, but there are several instances where school teachers have been fired because they appeared in adult films years ago. People are literally fired for work which is legal, consensual, and morally acceptable, because parents hate the idea that their kids are being "taught in class by a porn star".

I can think of plenty of occurrences where a homosexual or TG person would be fired simply for being who they are and I believe they should be protected because it's a logical extension of other protections we currently give (race, religion, etc). But I can't make the logical leap to say that the fact that you practice certain behaviors should make you a protected class.

Why not protect smokers, racists, coin collectors, ad nauseum?
Click to expand...
It's not the behavior, but the vulnerability which justifies protecting some classes but not others. There is a tremendous, ludicrous amount of empirical evidence that gay and trans people are an especially vulnerable group, in terms of being denied jobs or promotions, being denied equal pay, being sexually harassed, physically assaulted, or being treated unequally from their heterosexual cisgender counterparts. The case in the OP is exactly one of those textbook examples, being denied employment after outing oneself, which lays out trans people's vulnerability perfectly.

If there's good evidence that coin collectors are similarly vulnerable, and should be a protected class, feel free to show it.
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
I don't know . . . I can't think of a situation in which a person who practices BDSM (for example) would be fired simply because of their sexual practices. I can think of plenty of occurrences where a homosexual or TG person would be fired simply for being who they are and I believe they should be protected because it's a logical extension of other protections we currently give (race, religion, etc). But I can't make the logical leap to say that the fact that you practice certain behaviors should make you a protected class.

Why not protect smokers, racists, coin collectors, ad nauseum?
Click to expand...
I specifically pointed out what you are ignoring.
 
Dessi said:
I'm not willing to search for it while I'm at work, but there are several instances where school teachers have been fired because they appeared in adult films years ago. People are literally fired for work which is legal, consensual, and morally acceptable, because parents hate the idea that their kids are being "taught in class by a porn star".
Click to expand...
So "former adult film stars," should be a protected class? Sorry, I'm not buying the logic. You can't change being homosexual, black, TG, etc. But you can certainly choose NOT participate in porn. If you do, you should be fully aware that such participation can have negative consequences for you down the line.

It's not the behavior, but the vulnerability which justifies protecting some classes but not others. There is a tremendous, ludicrous amount of empirical evidence that gay and trans people are an especially vulnerable group, in terms of being denied jobs or promotions, being denied equal pay, being sexually harassed, physically assaulted, or being treated unequally from their heterosexual cisgender counterparts. The case in the OP is exactly one of those textbook examples, being denied employment after outing oneself, which lays out trans people's vulnerability perfectly.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. But crimresearch is suggesting that someone who participates in the BDSM community or swingers lifestyle should be part of a protected class. Those are chosen behaviors not unchangeable statuses like race, sexual orientation, etc. so I don't by the leap of logic.
 
Who people choose to consensually fall in love, or just plain have a sexual relationship with, shouldn't be a valid reason to fire them, or deny them full rights as a citizen.
Click to expand...
But they are. It's against many company policies to date subordinates, for example. And most states are at-will employment states, so a person can be fired for any reason at any time unless it is specifically illegal. I can fire a worker who happens to be homosexual tomorrow for absolutely no reason and face no legal consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom