you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

On the surface, this is a high quality article. I’m curious who wrote it. As I understand it, this is the website of the organization founded by Maya Forstater, who is not a lawyer, and this article appears to have been written by a lawyer.

I’m not as familiar with UK law but similar ideologically-motivated misconstructions of the law have happened in the U.S. For example, the Bostock SCOTUS opinion did not recognize “gender identity” as a protected category under Title VIi. Rather, it recognized that employment discrimination based on one’s “transgender status” is inherently discrimination based on one’s sex. The opinion seems to have deliberately avoided use of the words “gender identity” and did not define “transgender status” but emphasized the transition steps undertaken by plaintiff trans woman Aimee Stephens.

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

For example, the Bostock SCOTUS opinion did not recognize “gender identity” as a protected category under Title VIi. Rather, it recognized that employment discrimination based on one’s “transgender status” is inherently discrimination based on one’s sex. The opinion seems to have deliberately avoided use of the words “gender identity” and did not define “transgender status” but emphasized the transition steps undertaken by plaintiff trans woman Aimee Stephens.

Oh wow, I did not realize that. I could've sworn I'd read people claiming that it protected gender identity! Guess it might've just been some people reporting what they wanted the ruling to be...