Pass the Equality Act, but don’t abandon Title IX

submitted by jet199 from archive.is

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here is how the EA redefines sex.

"(4) SEX.—The term ‘sex’ includes—

“(A) a sex stereotype;

“(B) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition;

“(C) sexual orientation or gender identity; and

“(D) sex characteristics, including intersex traits.

To make matters worse, the EA defines says that access to sex-specific facilities, programs and provisions should be based on "gender identity" rather than biological sex, and defines "gender identity" as follows:

“(2) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth."

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text

This worrying language means that males like Blaire White, Contrapoints, Munroe Bergdorf, Gigi Gorgeous, Bruce Jenner, or even Ru Paul and his crew when dressed in full drag and acting out their fantasies would have more right to use female spaces, to participate in female sports and to obtain female services like gynecological care, female-only roommates in nursing homes and intimate hospital or home care from female-only aides and nurses than most of us bog-standard girls and women who do not have a "gender identity" and do not spend our lives performing femininity and conforming to regressive sex stereotypes through our "appearance, mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics."

Finally, though this whole bill is built around "gender identity" and the meaning of "gender identity" in turn is dependent on having a clear definition of what the hell "gender" means, nowhere in the EA is "gender" defined. The bill doesn't even attempt to define it!

The EA has to be one of the most poorly-written, confusing, confounding pieces of legislation ever written in the English language. Yet it sailed through the House, 236-173.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I very much admire Doriane Coleman and Martina Navratilova, but I disagree with their single-minded focus on sports here.

The Equality Act won't just get rid of sex separation in sports. It redefines sex in all sorts of ways (equating sex, first of all, with "sex stereotypes") and makes biological sex secondary to "gender identity."

The intent of the Equality Act is not just to protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender presentation - aims I support. Its intent is to make separating any facilities, programs, provisions and services illegal in any and all contexts - such as communal toilets at school, work, and in public places; changing rooms; locker rooms; showers; shelters; battered women's and rape refuges; health care; prisons; etc.

From the House of Representatives web page summarizing it:

This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in a wide variety of areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation.

The bill expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services.

The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5

[–]CastleHoward 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No! The equality act removes all of our sex based rights. Fuck you that you would come here of all places and try to tell us that we should roll over and let this happen.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Can you clarify who your "fuck you" is directed at?

Me? The OP? Or the authors of this misguided article, who I agree appear to be saying "so long as female sports are saved, girls and women should just roll over and give up all our other rights in the name of 'trans male inclusion' idiocy"?

[–]CastleHoward 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The authors. Sorry.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No need to apologize, LOL! It's just that with the indenting system here I often can't tell which posts/replies - and insults - are directed at whom.

[–]our_team_is_winning 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Erasure of Women Act with the Orwellian name "Equality Act" --- imagine if we had actual investigative journalism spreading the word about this so that everyone would be aware of it and outraged. Instead they try to sneak things like this through.