Down the Rabbit Hole. Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse

submitted by Silverhatband from self.GenderCritical

I was bumbling about with different searchs, and stumbled on this (pro TW access to women's spaces) article which referenced Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse as a Title VII GENDER case to support transgender "rights". (Hot mess paper, full of usual rhetoric, IMO) https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1312&context=djglp

Anyway, a search into the 1989 case, of course, yielded the expected "woman didn't conform to sex stereotypes" discrimination case. I fail to see that in anyway supports TWAW. Hopkins was not (that I've been able to find) claiming to be other than a woman, rather the MEN in the firm were upset she didn't "behave" like the men thought a woman should. Pifffff. The stuff genderidentityproponents try to pass off as "evidence".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/490/228

Enjoy this particular highlight:

20 There were clear signs, though, that some of the partners reacted negatively to Hopkins' personality because she was a woman. One partner described her as "macho" (Defendant's Exh. 30); another suggested that she "overcompensated for being a woman" (Defendant's Exh. 31); a third advised her to take "a course at charm school" (Defendant's Exh. 27). Several partners criticized her use of profanity; in response, one partner suggested that those partners objected to her swearing only "because it's a lady using foul language." Tr. 321. Another supporter explained that Hopkins "ha[d] matured from a tough-talking somewhat masculine hard-nosed mgr to an authoritative, formidable, but much more appealing lady ptr candidate." Defendant's Exh. 27. But it was the man who, as Judge Gesell found, bore responsibility for explaining to Hopkins the reasons for the Policy Board's decision to place her candidacy on hold who delivered the coup de grace: in order to improve her chances for partnership, Thomas Beyer advised, Hopkins should "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." 618 F.Supp., at 1117.

all 1 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]nuhuhno 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Um, this IS important. As Biden's Administration conflates Title VII with Title IX, we could learn as much as possible about these things...

Indeed, the "hot mess" paper actually lays out the T position. We need to study it.

. Indeed, it wasn’t until after Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins that the Sixth Circuit held in Smith v. City of Salem and the Eleventh Circuit speculated in Glenn v. Brumby that Title VII truly protects transgendered people. When reading these cases together, the federal government’s position appears to be that unless a state can show an exceedingly persuasive reason for requiring segregation of bathrooms and locker rooms based on biological sex at birth, forcing transgender people to use these facilities whether at school or on the job is discrimination based on sex in violation of federal law.

Surely, we must argue gender is not sex, isn't that what Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse determined? And surely we can present an "exceedingly persuasive reason" for sex segregation by now?