- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- Messages
- 7,430
- Reaction score
- 8,263
- Location
- North Idaho
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I agree. I am totally supportive of fundamental trans rights and their right to have protections against discrimination in housing, employment and so on. But one must admit that transsexual or transgender people belong to a "special" class such that it is understandable that physical competition is unfair to females who were born females.....to tie trans rights to the ability of trans women to compete in women’s sports is insane. By doing so, you are handing [MAGA and the cultural right] a politically winning issue.
At least one Court of Appeals found that transgenders are a protected class under Title VII.A better argument to have with MAGA is on fundamental trans rights, and their right to have protections against discrimination in housing, employment and so on. Fight them on their stupid bathroom bills, their attempts to block trans women from changing their driver’s license. Fight them on their attempts to deny healthcare to trans people.
Those are all issues that are political losers for MAGA, so don’t make the battle about trans women in women’s sports because all we are doing then is handing MAGA a winning issue.
"To establish a prima facie case of retaliation pursuant to Title VII, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he engaged in an activity protected by Title VII; (2) the defendant knew he engaged in this protected activity, [etc.].... Smith's complaint satisfies the first two requirements..." Smith v. City of Salem, Ohio, 378 F. 3d 566 - Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 2004.
The 6th Circuit based the above decision on the Supreme Court's holding in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 US 228 - Supreme Court 1989, where that court found:
"...the statute [Title VII] forbids an employer to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment," or to "limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's . . . sex." 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(1), (2) (emphasis added). We take these words to mean that gender must be irrelevant to employment decisions." [emphasis added]