The US Equality Act: amend or defeat? What's your opinion?

submitted by forwardback from (self.GenderCritical)

Lurking Ovarit, I read this post https://ovarit.com/o/WomensLiberation/9850/open-letter-from-feminists-in-struggle-to-the-interim-steering-committee-of-the

Which, led me to read https://feministstruggle.org/faea/

For link to WHRC amendment https://womensdeclaration.com/en/country-info/united-states-america/whrc-usa/

The current US act as passed by the House of Representatives https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text

WoLF supported testimony on act https://www.womensliberationfront.org/news/julia-beck-testifies-on-gender-identity-in-hr-5-the-equality-act-at-the-house-judiciary-hearing?rq=Equality%20act

So, your opinions?

Personally, I see transgenderism as a mental, emotional, and possibly, spiritual, deviation from social norms, rather than an immutable condition of biology as other stated classes in the Civil Rights Act (should) mention (race, sex, sexual orientation). These classes are observable and historically subject to discrimination. Why can not transgenderism be covered and protected under the class of (? used to be mental illness)? I'm not sorry, but identity based upon whim or, I'll say it, sexual perversion, or trauma, should not be equated with, much less supersede, an immutable, observable, targeted, class. I believe the EA should be defeated, and a new act to clearly define and protect sexual orientation and sex based provisions, unequivocally disavowing gender stereotypes, would be preferable.

Edit word, link

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The US EA does not mention "transgenderism."

Rather, it says that "gender identity" should be a protected characteristic, and that access to single-sex toilets, change rooms, locker rooms, prison, programs and services as well as female sports should be based on person's "gender identity" rather than biological sex.

Moreover, the EA redefines "sex" in worrying ways.

The EA as it stands now is very poorly written. It erases or changes the meaning of biological sex in already extant federal statutes like Title IX. The EA would make it federal law that girls and women in the US have no legal right to safety, privacy, dignity, peace of mind or fairness in the small number of settings and situations where sex segregation makes sense and is justifiable - public and work or school communal toilets, locker rooms, changing rooms, prisons, shelters, refuges, health care, support groups, recovery programs, sports...

I think the US EA in its current form should be defeated, then rewritten to solidify the right to sex separation in certain certain circumstances (sports, toilets, change rooms, health care, prisons and so on) and to prohibit housing, employment and other forms of discrimination against anyone of either sex based on sexual orientation.

I think we need to have a whole lot of public debates and discussions about what "gender presentation" and "gender identity" actually or supposedly mean before considering making these protected characteristics in law.

Rather than protect people from discrimination based on their "gender identity," I think perhaps it would make more sense to consider prohibiting discrimination in housing and employment based on a person having an appearance (and affect?) that is different from expected norms. This would help "trans" people and all the other gender speshuls as well as a lot of other people - such as those with autism; people with bald heads and wasting from cancer and chemotherapy; people who are very overweight; people with deformities, skin conditions, facial tics and unusual eye movements, sweating disorders and many other conditions that others might initially find unsightly, off-putting, unnerving and/or inconveniencing but which don't meet the strict criteria of being disabilities in US law; those whose faces or bodies are unfortunately just seen as ugly by many according to current standards of beauty and acceptability; people covered with tattoos that might cause others to look askance...

For example, I imagine that people of all races with albinism are discriminated against in various contexts based on their unusual appearance. However, albinism is not in itself a disability under US law because most people with albinism are healthy; thus people with the condition are not automatically protected by anti-discrimination statutes. Vitiligo only counts as a disability in federal law if it causes serious visual impairments.

Similarly, I'd guess people with the uneven pigmentation condition vitiligo, visible psoriasis, serious eczema and extreme acne and pockmarks often suffer discrimination based on their appearance. However, AFAIK none of these skin conditions are considered disabilities under US federal law because people with these skin problems are usually otherwise healthy and able-bodied, so they are not protected from housing and employment discrimination by current statutes.

[–]lefterfield 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

My only concern with agreeing with you on this is that I know some men dress provocatively as part of a fetish/deliberately provoking a reaction from others. No one should be forced to tolerate someone else's sexual fetish in the name of anti-discrimination - and that will happen if the conditions covered are too broad.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I agree with you completely! That's why I said we needed to have a whole lot of public debates and discussions about this.

I think the idea that everyone should be able to bring their "whole self" to work and impose their "whole self" on the public is nuts. It's a cover for saying people should be able to parade all their sexual proclivities, preferences and kinks in public and make everyone else a party to them. Yuk.

The conditions that are covered under US disability law are very narrow and specific. There's no reason that prohibitions against appearance-based discrimination couldn't be framed just as narrowly and specifically so as to protect people from discrimination based on the skin conditions and burn scars they can't help but not to protect them based on their chosen fetish wear or facial piercings.

HR regs, workplace and school dress and conduct codes can easily be written to prohibit people of both sexes equally from dressing and behaving in sexually provocative and fetishistic ways - and all other ways that are inappropriate at work/school and in public.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I've just come back to add that I've been thinking that if there were to be a prohibition against discrimination based on someone's "gender presentation" - eg their manner of dress & grooming - then garb/grooming that announces one's "gender identity" to the world would probably have to be viewed as akin to religious garb, as well as akin to garb that expresses one's political beliefs. (Such as a MAGA hat; an Antifa T-shirt, mask outfit; a BLM hat; a "this witch won't burn" tee shirt, a womanhoodie saying "Woman: adult human female" etc)

This made me do some thought experiments...

In the process, I realized that if I were hiring someone to work for me or renting out a dwelling or commercial space, then solely based on appearance and first visual impressions I as a USA resident probably would be much more likely to consider hiring or renting to a man or woman of any age, race or ethnicity who dressed in conventional USA/Western workplace attire than to anyone of either sex wearing any kind of sexed-up, provocative and IMO inappropriate outfit. At the same time, I'd probably be less favorably inclined to consider hiring or renting to anyone wearing a Roman Catholic clerical collar or nun's habit, garb indicating allegiance to either strict orthodox Islam or Judaism, customary Amish attire, or the robes and shaved head typical of Hare Krishnas. I'd probably nix anyone who looked like Sid Vicious or Johnny Rotten circa 1976, or had their entire face covered with tattoos too... At the same time, I'd likely be favorably inclined towards a woman wearing a "Woman: AHF" pin or carrying a bag saying the same.

I realize this makes me prejudiced. Funny thing is, I wouldn't have an immediate "no thanks, I'll pass on you as a candidate" reaction to a woman wearing a sari, a man with a beard and Sikh turban, someone wearing the clerical collar of the Episcopal church, or a man or woman dressed in the traditional attire of a Buddhist monk or nun. However, if I'm honest, I have to admit that as a potential employer or landlord I would have an immediate "think I'll pass on this candidate from the get-go" reaction to a man wearing a turban and attire that indicated he was an imam; a woman in a burka, chador or niqab (though not a woman in just a hijab); or a man dressed like a RCC bishop, cardinal or pope. Which I guess makes me to some extent both Islamophobic and Cathlophobic.

We do arrive at snap judgments of each other based on appearance and attire, don't we? And as I've discovered in my little thought experiment, I am more likely to make perhaps unfair and unwarranted immediate judgments of others based on their attire and appearance than I'd like to admit.

[–]lefterfield 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's a part of human nature, we all do this to some extent. And in some cases, it's likely warranted that a company doesn't want someone obviously outspoken about politics or religion working for them - but that's also unfair in many cases. I do think we need, as a society, to have a serious discussion on what should be included in a bill to protect "gender expression" (or political, religious, etc...), but I don't know what the answer is. Not all immediate judgments are bad, and to some extent we also have the right to free association. On the other hand, people need to be able to find work and housing without undue burden on how to act or dress to please others. It's a complicated issue.

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

Yes, I agree it's a complicated issue and that we as a society need to have a serious discussion - or a bunch of serious discussions - about this.

But I think the discussion needs to go beyond "gender expression" and include dress/styling traditionally characteristic of different ethnic, religious and political groups with longstanding and entrenched cultures and customs - and also of the dress/styling chosen by different more recently-invented tribes (hippies, glam rockers and 70s/80s gender benders, punks, goths, emos and so on).

When I did my thought experiment, I was not proud of, or pleased with, the prejudices I found in my heart.

On the other hand, as someone who has been both a landlord and employer, I am pleased to find that when I look at all my hires and tenants over more than 30 years, I have a very good record of showing no biases based on sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, marital/relationship status, levels of formal education, age, country of origin, and so on. (Biases against religion I can't really say, coz I never had applicants who paraded their religion, and it never occurred to me to try to find out what someone's religion might be - which I think is illegal anyway.)

I have, however, shown bias based on immigration status, coz I've not hired or rented to anyone in the US illegally - in part coz it's illegal for me to do so, and also coz it creates an uneven power relationship between employer-employee or landlord-tenant that I don't want to participate in. For the same reasons, I've refused to have any under the table or off the books relationships with any employees or tenants. And of course, when it comes to tenants, I've done credit and employment/income checks, so have discriminated against rental applicants based on their current economic status.

Still, I am disturbed by the extent to which I realized I might make a snap judgment against a black male applicant who came to his interview wearing a dashiki whereas if the very same man arrived dressed like Tiger Woods or Daymond John, I'd be receptive to him.