Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC) NewsFlash SCOTUS rules 6-3 that workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender   (cnbc.com) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, Homosexuality, Sexual orientation, Gender, Supreme Court, Transgender, sexual orientation, Donald Zarda, LGBT  
•       •       •

6617 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 15 Jun 2020 at 10:20 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

728 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-06-15 3:45:23 PM  

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"


I mean... That's actually pretty reasonable and right in line with his textualist take on constitutional law.
 
2020-06-15 3:50:53 PM  

dywed88: Chuck87: This was the wrong decision.  With this kind of logic, it could make having different dress codes for men and women illegal.

1) What is wrong with the decision?

2) What is wrong with uniform dress codes for all employees?



1) It's not following the original meaning of the law.

2) A lot of people are offended at seeing butch women or drag queens.
 
2020-06-15 3:52:28 PM  
It's so incredibly refreshing, after the utter shiatstorm that was last week, to see that at least one branch of the government still recognizes us as valid human beings, deserving of rights.
 
2020-06-15 3:53:48 PM  

Chuck87: dywed88: Chuck87: This was the wrong decision.  With this kind of logic, it could make having different dress codes for men and women illegal.

1) What is wrong with the decision?

2) What is wrong with uniform dress codes for all employees?


1) It's not following the original meaning of the law.

2) A lot of people are offended at seeing butch women or drag queens.


1) How is it not following the meaning of the law. Susie married Steve and there is no issue. Jim married George and gets fired. George is being discriminated against on the basis of his sex.

2) So? A lot of people are offending by seeing a lot of things.
 
2020-06-15 3:53:59 PM  

shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you

As a lawyer who studied molecular genetics and developmental biology in undergrad... you need to stop. Human biology is incredibly complex and prone to weirdness, and that extends to sex determination. If you tell any biologist that a human with XY sex chromosomes identifies as a female, they won't bat an eye. There are several known ways in which that is known to occur, including damage to the Y chromosome or an unlikely crossover event where the genes responsible for triggering maleness are just not there anymore. That's not even getting into issues with epigenetic effects on the fetus or genetic, hormonal, or other conditions present in the mother that may have an effect on a person's development. None of those things takes a way the humanity of the child, but might very well have effects on the sexual identity or expression or identity of the child later on.

Your position that sex is binary and absolute is frankly pretty juvenile, and for you to trot it out with such unwavering confidence is embarrassing.

You are confusing morphology with function.

What?


He's confusing third-grade level biology with facts. Just ignore him.
 
2020-06-15 3:57:15 PM  

Walker: "I LIKE BEER BUT NOT GAY PEOPLE!"
[Fark user image 840x560]


He had a very conflicting post-kegger "wrestling" session with Squee.
 
2020-06-15 3:58:24 PM  
The ruling is pretty simple:

1. If a woman can get fired for marrying another woman, but a man cannot, then that woman is being discriminated against on the basis of sex.
2. If a "biological man" (I hate that term for a number of reasons, but will roll with it) can get fired for presenting as a woman, but not a woman, then that "biological man" is being discriminated against on the basis of sex.
I think one of the parts that is interesting to me is this gives an opening for those who are non-gender conforming, but not trans:
3. If a man can get fired for wearing a dress, but not a woman, then that man is being discriminated about on sex.

The gist here is that if someone is denied privileges or rights based on their sex, that is sex discrimination, which makes sense unless you're being willfully obtuse.
 
2020-06-15 3:59:22 PM  

Leishu: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you

As a lawyer who studied molecular genetics and developmental biology in undergrad... you need to stop. Human biology is incredibly complex and prone to weirdness, and that extends to sex determination. If you tell any biologist that a human with XY sex chromosomes identifies as a female, they won't bat an eye. There are several known ways in which that is known to occur, including damage to the Y chromosome or an unlikely crossover event where the genes responsible for triggering maleness are just not there anymore. That's not even getting into issues with epigenetic effects on the fetus or genetic, hormonal, or other conditions present in the mother that may have an effect on a person's development. None of those things takes a way the humanity of the child, but might very well have effects on the sexual identity or expression or identity of the child later on.

Your position that sex is binary and absolute is frankly pretty juvenile, and for you to trot it out with such unwavering confidence is embarrassing.

You are confusing morphology with function.

What?

He's confusing third-grade level biology with facts. Just ignore him.


1 sperm, 1 egg. How is that not binary?
 
2020-06-15 3:59:32 PM  
And like that, Liberty University, Bob Jones Universirty, BYU, and nearly every bible college in America is sued out of existence.  Probably not, but it would be great if they were.
 
2020-06-15 4:01:53 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you

As a lawyer who studied molecular genetics and developmental biology in undergrad... you need to stop. Human biology is incredibly complex and prone to weirdness, and that extends to sex determination. If you tell any biologist that a human with XY sex chromosomes identifies as a female, they won't bat an eye. There are several known ways in which that is known to occur, including damage to the Y chromosome or an unlikely crossover event where the genes responsible for triggering maleness are just not there anymore. That's not even getting into issues with epigenetic effects on the fetus or genetic, hormonal, or other conditions present in the mother that may have an effect on a person's development. None of those things takes a way the humanity of the child, but might very well have effects on the sexual identity or expression or identity of the child later on.

Your position that sex is binary and absolute is frankly pretty juvenile, and for you to trot it out with such unwavering confidence is embarrassing.

You are confusing morphology with function.

What?

Use a dictionary for the big words


Honey, it's not the definitions of the words that don't make sense. I'm confused by whatever the hell point you think you're making.
 
2020-06-15 4:08:12 PM  

dywed88: Chuck87: dywed88: Chuck87: This was the wrong decision.  With this kind of logic, it could make having different dress codes for men and women illegal.

1) What is wrong with the decision?

2) What is wrong with uniform dress codes for all employees?


1) It's not following the original meaning of the law.

2) A lot of people are offended at seeing butch women or drag queens.

1) How is it not following the meaning of the law. Susie married Steve and there is no issue. Jim married George and gets fired. George is being discriminated against on the basis of his sex.

2) So? A lot of people are offending by seeing a lot of things.



1) He's not fired for being a man, he was fired for his actions while being a man.


2) You're right, just being "offensive" should not be reason enough to get a person fired.  It all depends on what it is.  We are living in a country where some people are posting "All Lives Matter" and some people want those people to lose their jobs.  That's wrong.  But, what you have to remember is that if you have a business such as a daycare and people see a drag queen or two working there, there is a good chance they will lose customers, especially in certain areas of the U.S.
 
2020-06-15 4:11:19 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: You still need a sperm and an egg to make another human. You still have to deal with this very basic fact. 1 sperm and 1 egg is binary. There is not a 3rd type of sex cell and there isnt a cell that's an intermediate of the 2.


But again - someone may produce one, the other, both, or neither. And that is NOT definitionally determined by their chromosomes, their genitals, their classically masculine or feminine features, or any other specific attribute that people like you want to nail down as a binary sex selection.

You're trying to force a statistical argument into a definitional argument.  Sex is not binary.  It's certainly less diverse than gender expression, and more fall into the classical definitions.  But again, it's a statistical preference in biological expression.
 
2020-06-15 4:13:55 PM  

Chuck87: dywed88: Chuck87: dywed88: Chuck87: This was the wrong decision.  With this kind of logic, it could make having different dress codes for men and women illegal.

1) What is wrong with the decision?

2) What is wrong with uniform dress codes for all employees?


1) It's not following the original meaning of the law.

2) A lot of people are offended at seeing butch women or drag queens.

1) How is it not following the meaning of the law. Susie married Steve and there is no issue. Jim married George and gets fired. George is being discriminated against on the basis of his sex.

2) So? A lot of people are offending by seeing a lot of things.


1) He's not fired for being a man, he was fired for his actions while being a man.


2) You're right, just being "offensive" should not be reason enough to get a person fired.  It all depends on what it is.  We are living in a country where some people are posting "All Lives Matter" and some people want those people to lose their jobs.  That's wrong.  But, what you have to remember is that if you have a business such as a daycare and people see a drag queen or two working there, there is a good chance they will lose customers, especially in certain areas of the U.S.


Discrimination based on sex isn't just doing something because the person is a male or
Female, it is also punishing a male (or
female) for something that a female (or male) would not be punished for. In the example, he was fired for doing something as a man that a woman would not be fired for doing. That is discrimination based on sex.
 
2020-06-15 4:15:17 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: 1 sperm, 1 egg. How is that not binary?


A sperm isn't human.  It doesn't have a sex.  An egg isn't a human.  It doesn't have a sex. An egg can come from someone with all of the biological definitional markers of being male, and vice versa.  The existence of true hermaphrodism in reproducing humans demonstrates that there are people who can generate both.  There are also those that can produce neither, and do not have the tissues to produce either, and therefore cannot be typed.

How are you not understanding this?
 
2020-06-15 4:23:29 PM  

shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you

As a lawyer who studied molecular genetics and developmental biology in undergrad... you need to stop. Human biology is incredibly complex and prone to weirdness, and that extends to sex determination. If you tell any biologist that a human with XY sex chromosomes identifies as a female, they won't bat an eye. There are several known ways in which that is known to occur, including damage to the Y chromosome or an unlikely crossover event where the genes responsible for triggering maleness are just not there anymore. That's not even getting into issues with epigenetic effects on the fetus or genetic, hormonal, or other conditions present in the mother that may have an effect on a person's development. None of those things takes a way the humanity of the child, but might very well have effects on the sexual identity or expression or identity of the child later on.

Your position that sex is binary and absolute is frankly pretty juvenile, and for you to trot it out with such unwavering confidence is embarrassing.

You are confusing morphology with function.

What?

Use a dictionary for the big words

Honey, it's not the definitions of the words that don't make sense. I'm confused by whatever the hell point you think you're making.


The function of sex is reproduction, sweetums. 1 sperm, 1 egg is binary. There arent any intermediate sex cells or a third discrete type. You position seems to be that the packaging the gametes comes in matters (morphology). There are intersex conditions, true. But you still need 1 sperm and 1 egg.
 
2020-06-15 4:28:03 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you

As a lawyer who studied molecular genetics and developmental biology in undergrad... you need to stop. Human biology is incredibly complex and prone to weirdness, and that extends to sex determination. If you tell any biologist that a human with XY sex chromosomes identifies as a female, they won't bat an eye. There are several known ways in which that is known to occur, including damage to the Y chromosome or an unlikely crossover event where the genes responsible for triggering maleness are just not there anymore. That's not even getting into issues with epigenetic effects on the fetus or genetic, hormonal, or other conditions present in the mother that may have an effect on a person's development. None of those things takes a way the humanity of the child, but might very well have effects on the sexual identity or expression or identity of the child later on.

Your position that sex is binary and absolute is frankly pretty juvenile, and for you to trot it out with such unwavering confidence is embarrassing.

You are confusing morphology with function.

What?

Use a dictionary for the big words

Honey, it's not the definitions of the words that don't make sense. I'm confused by whatever the hell point you think you're making.

The function of sex is reproduction, sweetums. 1 sperm, 1 egg is binary. There arent any intermediate sex cells or a third discrete type. You position seems to be that the packaging the gametes comes in matters (morphology). There are intersex conditions, true. But you still need 1 sperm and 1 egg.


Are you aware that people have purpose and lives beyond sexual reproduction?
 
2020-06-15 4:31:18 PM  
Can't wait for the first person on the right to call for Gorsuch and/or Roberts's impeachment so Trump can replace them with a conservative stooge.

Give it a week. It'll happen.
 
2020-06-15 4:34:45 PM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: You still need a sperm and an egg to make another human. You still have to deal with this very basic fact. 1 sperm and 1 egg is binary. There is not a 3rd type of sex cell and there isnt a cell that's an intermediate of the 2.

But again - someone may produce one, the other, both, or neither. And that is NOT definitionally determined by their chromosomes, their genitals, their classically masculine or feminine features, or any other specific attribute that people like you want to nail down as a binary sex selection.

You're trying to force a statistical argument into a definitional argument.  Sex is not binary.  It's certainly less diverse than gender expression, and more fall into the classical definitions.  But again, it's a statistical preference in biological expression.


Statistical definitions are still definitions. But this does not matter here. Sex is a function not a form. People who produce neither or both have some sort of defect. It doesnt make them less human. It just means they are evolutionary dead ends.

Saying that intersex conditions are a spectrum is like saying a one arm man is on a spectrum of human limbs. It's clearly not supposed to be that way under normal conditions. Plus this ignores the fact that intersex conditions have different causes.
 
2020-06-15 4:35:44 PM  

Leishu: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you

As a lawyer who studied molecular genetics and developmental biology in undergrad... you need to stop. Human biology is incredibly complex and prone to weirdness, and that extends to sex determination. If you tell any biologist that a human with XY sex chromosomes identifies as a female, they won't bat an eye. There are several known ways in which that is known to occur, including damage to the Y chromosome or an unlikely crossover event where the genes responsible for triggering maleness are just not there anymore. That's not even getting into issues with epigenetic effects on the fetus or genetic, hormonal, or other conditions present in the mother that may have an effect on a person's development. None of those things takes a way the humanity of the child, but might very well have effects on the sexual identity or expression or identity of the child later on.

Your position that sex is binary and absolute is frankly pretty juvenile, and for you to trot it out with such unwavering confidence is embarrassing.

You are confusing morphology with function.

What?

Use a dictionary for the big words

Honey, it's not the definitions of the words that don't make sense. I'm confused by whatever the hell point you think you're making.

The function of sex is reproduction, sweetums. 1 sperm, 1 egg is binary. There arent any intermediate sex cells or a third discrete type. You position seems to be that the packaging the gametes comes in matters (morphology). There are intersex conditions, true. But you still need 1 sperm and 1 egg.

Are you aware that people have purpose and lives beyond sexual reproduction?


Yes. And that is irrelevant.
 
2020-06-15 4:38:56 PM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: 1 sperm, 1 egg. How is that not binary?

A sperm isn't human.  It doesn't have a sex.  An egg isn't a human.  It doesn't have a sex. An egg can come from someone with all of the biological definitional markers of being male, and vice versa.  The existence of true hermaphrodism in reproducing humans demonstrates that there are people who can generate both.  There are also those that can produce neither, and do not have the tissues to produce either, and therefore cannot be typed.

How are you not understanding this?


Exceptions do not invalidate the overwhelming rule. Reproduction is the function of sex. You need one of both. How do you not understand this?
 
2020-06-15 4:41:54 PM  

Magorn: Geotpf: RussianPotato: I have to read the opinion, but I don't see how this fits in with the intent of the legislators who passed Title VII back decades ago.  Legislative intent is the polestar that guides all cases interpreting a statute.  If you had asked the legislators way back when if they were voting to protect gay and transgender people I doubt you would've gotten more than 1 "yes."

Yup, you pretty much have to actively ignore what Congress meant the law to mean to support this ruling.

IMHO, it's the right thing to do, on a moral level, and also a bad ruling, on a legal level.  The proper way to do this, on a legal basis, is to pass a new law.  Of course, given the current make up of the Senate, that's impossible currently.

In Judicial interpretation, Rule #1 is there IS no such thing as "the intent of the legislators"  because they are not a single person or of a single mind thus  it is a hypothetical and ultimately unknowable thing. Senator A who wrote the bill may have MEANT X, and said so in writing , but Senator B. May have VOTED for it because he read it as meaning Y....and so on an so forth for all 435 people who voted on it. Ergo, all you can interpret is the plain meaning of what they wrote. In this case they said you may not discriminate on account of sex (gender) Ergo, If you would not fire a female employee for dating or marrying a man you  may not fire a male employee for that. ipso facto.


You're saying the right things, but in the wrong way.

Statements of people who vote for the legislation are almost completely worthless.  Statements made by anyone after the bill has passed are completely worthless.  Statements made by the sponsor of the bill in committee are mostly worthless, but can still be considered for legislative intent.  After all, as you correctly pointed out even if the sponsor said "We're passing this law for X" that doesn't mean that everyone voted for it with that intent in mind.

However, the legislative history, which combines the statements of sponsors and how the bill is changed as it proceeds to committee, as well as statements made in debate, and definitely using the stated legislative intent that is often contained in most bills, the intent can all be cobbled together.

And let's all be completely honest here.  I doubt there was a single politician back in the 60s who passed this law with the understanding or intent that it would apply to these people.
 
2020-06-15 4:42:00 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Yes. And that is irrelevant.


If it is irrelevant to your comments, then maybe consider that your comments, which are in a thread about a Supreme Court decision on employment, which for most people has nothing to do with sexual reproduction, are irrelevant to the thread.
 
2020-06-15 4:42:17 PM  

rebelyell2006: So what is the red hatter's goal by arguing over definitions of sex or gender, other than to piss off people?


Because they need wedge issues, or they will cease to exist.
 
2020-06-15 4:44:27 PM  
Wait. Is red hatter the long-named anti-trans bigot with a dysfunctional understanding of biology, or the longer-named anti-trans bigot with a dysfunctional understanding of biology?
 
2020-06-15 4:46:30 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: flondrix: there are no genetic advantages to being a rich gay uncle

Eusocial insects like ants, bees, and termites have non-progeny-producing family members in ASTONISHING numbers, and this was the key to their success.


The only reason it works out for the worker bees, ants, and termites is their degree of relatedness to the queen, and the fact that she is essentially having "their" children for them.  In general it doesn't work that way for mammals...except for naked mole rats.
 
2020-06-15 4:47:49 PM  

Eclectic: To the posters who come into every trans-related thread to throw an absolute fit about chromosomes and what you learned in ninth grade biology, could you maybe just go smoke a giant bowl to distract yourself, and let ALL the LBGTQ+ people celebrate some positive news?

Or at least read the room and maybe figure out that being "that person" isn't a good look right here and now.

Everybody under the rainbow can breathe a little easier today, but you're determined to not only be the turds in the punchbowl, but you're f*cking proud of your own asshattery.


*hugs* (assuming consent)
 
2020-06-15 4:50:22 PM  

MechaPyx: RussianPotato: So in 200 years are we going to keep reinterpreting this singular law to cover everything under the sun?  Will there never be any new civil rights legislation passed?  After all, what need is there if we can use this hammer from 1968 to hammer any shaped peg into any shaped hole?

Shouldn't have to. Come up with new laws to protect against discrimination that is.
We shouldn't have to spell it out for every single difference in existence. It shouldn't matter the color of your skin, your religion, sex, gender, the clothes you wear, the length of your nails. Whatever petty differences people come up with. One blanket law should suffice. Don't discriminate. Period.


That's not how laws work.  You can't make a law prohibiting undefined and nebulous activities.

"Don't discriminate!"  Sounds like a sweet bumper sticker.  And a really, really, really stupid law.

So a kindergarten can't discriminate against a registered sex offender?  A fire rescue department can't discriminate against a blind person who wants to drive a fire truck?  I guess massage parlors are going to have to hire people who are paralyzed below the neck as masseuse?  Sounds like all those restaurants that refused to hire typhoid mary - who killed hundreds of people through her negligence - need to be sued.

Discrimination is a part of life.  As a society we pass laws saying "But THIS discrimination is unlawful."  And that's good.  I do not criticize the goal of protecting gay people from being fired.  That's laudable.  But if you want to achieve that then PASS A LAW.  As so many states and municipalities already did, because Title VII simply didn't provide these protections until SCOTUS waved a magic wand and rewrote the law.  Which is NOT a long term solution to anything.
 
2020-06-15 4:52:23 PM  

Magorn: Rule #1 is there IS no such thing as "the intent of the legislators" because they are not a single person or of a single mind thus it is a hypothetical and ultimately unknowable thing.


The intent of the legislators is to get re-elected while pulling in as much grift money as possible and avoiding blackmail, and maybe score some tail on the side.  I would prefer that court decisions were not based on the intent of the legislators.
 
2020-06-15 4:52:50 PM  

RussianPotato: MechaPyx: RussianPotato: So in 200 years are we going to keep reinterpreting this singular law to cover everything under the sun?  Will there never be any new civil rights legislation passed?  After all, what need is there if we can use this hammer from 1968 to hammer any shaped peg into any shaped hole?

Shouldn't have to. Come up with new laws to protect against discrimination that is.
We shouldn't have to spell it out for every single difference in existence. It shouldn't matter the color of your skin, your religion, sex, gender, the clothes you wear, the length of your nails. Whatever petty differences people come up with. One blanket law should suffice. Don't discriminate. Period.

That's not how laws work.  You can't make a law prohibiting undefined and nebulous activities.

"Don't discriminate!"  Sounds like a sweet bumper sticker.  And a really, really, really stupid law.

So a kindergarten can't discriminate against a registered sex offender?  A fire rescue department can't discriminate against a blind person who wants to drive a fire truck?  I guess massage parlors are going to have to hire people who are paralyzed below the neck as masseuse?  Sounds like all those restaurants that refused to hire typhoid mary - who killed hundreds of people through her negligence - need to be sued.

Discrimination is a part of life.  As a society we pass laws saying "But THIS discrimination is unlawful."  And that's good.  I do not criticize the goal of protecting gay people from being fired.  That's laudable.  But if you want to achieve that then PASS A LAW.  As so many states and municipalities already did, because Title VII simply didn't provide these protections until SCOTUS waved a magic wand and rewrote the law.  Which is NOT a long term solution to anything.


And so what happens to those people who live in areas which do no respect their right to not be discriminated against? Are they just an acceptable loss?

Because it's really damn hard to do anything when your right to a job, healthcare, and a home are negotiable.
 
2020-06-15 4:53:14 PM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: People shouldn't be fired for being gay or trans, they(people) should be fired for being shiatty workers.


But then Fark traffic would be 0 during working hours.
 
2020-06-15 4:55:03 PM  
Now, I wonder... according to this decision, it's forbidden to fire men who fark other men, because women farking men would be OK, hence it's discrimination based on sex.

Now, let's put it the other way round.

Does it mean that now it's suddenly allowed to fire whoever farks men as long as there is no discrimination on who is doing it? Both women and gay / bi men can be fired then and that wouldn't count as discrimination any more? I can see some people rejoicing at the thought...

/Only half-joking
//Until it actually happens
///I *do* hope I'm just horribly wrong
 
2020-06-15 4:56:18 PM  
Congratulations to the LGBTQ community (but really all of us) for this monumental milestone in equality and protection of rights!

/and f$ck you to anyone who disagrees with the decision
 
2020-06-15 4:56:23 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you

As a lawyer who studied molecular genetics and developmental biology in undergrad... you need to stop. Human biology is incredibly complex and prone to weirdness, and that extends to sex determination. If you tell any biologist that a human with XY sex chromosomes identifies as a female, they won't bat an eye. There are several known ways in which that is known to occur, including damage to the Y chromosome or an unlikely crossover event where the genes responsible for triggering maleness are just not there anymore. That's not even getting into issues with epigenetic effects on the fetus or genetic, hormonal, or other conditions present in the mother that may have an effect on a person's development. None of those things takes a way the humanity of the child, but might very well have effects on the sexual identity or expression or identity of the child later on.

Your position that sex is binary and absolute is frankly pretty juvenile, and for you to trot it out with such unwavering confidence is embarrassing.

You are confusing morphology with function.

What?

Use a dictionary for the big words

Honey, it's not the definitions of the words that don't make sense. I'm confused by whatever the hell point you think you're making.

The function of sex is reproduction, sweetums. 1 sperm, 1 egg is binary. There arent any intermediate sex cells or a third discrete type. You position seems to be that the packaging the gametes comes in matters (morphology). There are intersex conditions, true. But you still need 1 sperm and 1 egg.


My position is that human biology is complex and prone to high degrees of variation, and people can't always be accurately distinguished into one of two absolute, binary sexes with some hard biological factor. I gave examples for why the sex chromosomes don't serve this purpose. You seem obsessed with gametes for some reason, but that doesn't work either. As other people pointed out, there are intersex people with sperm, eggs, both, or neither. Those people might also have some mixture of male and female sex organs or tissues. The fact that there are two kinds of gametes does not mean that sex itself is binary.
 
2020-06-15 4:56:43 PM  

RussianPotato: A fire rescue department can't discriminate against a blind person who wants to drive a fire truck?


In a few years, that may fall under "reasonable accommodation":
https://singularityhub.com/2020/05/22​/​a-new-bionic-eye-could-give-robots-and​-the-blind-20-20-vision/

Of course, by then the truck will have the bionic eyes and will be driving itself.
 
2020-06-15 4:58:19 PM  

Leishu: And so what happens to those people who live in areas which do no respect their right to not be discriminated against? Are they just an acceptable loss?


Congress.  Could.  Pass.  A.  Law.  Protecting.  Them.

That's how it works.  Congress MAKES law.  The president executes the laws.  The court interprets them.

When a court reinterprets a 50 year old law that had never provided such protections, to now provide such protections, it has rewritten the law and has usurped a power that belongs solely to congress.  No matter how laudable the goals may be.

I want you to calm down a second and think this through.  Realize that you do not want the court to have the power to write law.  They are unelected.  They are unaccountable.  Do you really want to give all of the powers of congress to the courts.  How about if Trump wins re election and gets another two judges on there?
 
2020-06-15 5:03:44 PM  

Leishu: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Yes. And that is irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant to your comments, then maybe consider that your comments, which are in a thread about a Supreme Court decision on employment, which for most people has nothing to do with sexual reproduction, are irrelevant to the thread.


Maybe. Then why are you responding?
 
2020-06-15 5:11:26 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Leishu: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Yes. And that is irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant to your comments, then maybe consider that your comments, which are in a thread about a Supreme Court decision on employment, which for most people has nothing to do with sexual reproduction, are irrelevant to the thread.

Maybe. Then why are you responding?


Because you're clogging up a thread about people getting equal rights with stupid obfuscations, and you deserve to get called on it.
 
2020-06-15 5:12:32 PM  

RussianPotato: Leishu: And so what happens to those people who live in areas which do no respect their right to not be discriminated against? Are they just an acceptable loss?

Congress.  Could.  Pass.  A.  Law.  Protecting.  Them.

That's how it works.  Congress MAKES law.  The president executes the laws.  The court interprets them.

When a court reinterprets a 50 year old law that had never provided such protections, to now provide such protections, it has rewritten the law and has usurped a power that belongs solely to congress.  No matter how laudable the goals may be.

I want you to calm down a second and think this through.  Realize that you do not want the court to have the power to write law.  They are unelected.  They are unaccountable.  Do you really want to give all of the powers of congress to the courts.  How about if Trump wins re election and gets another two judges on there?


I'm pretty calm. I'm actually overjoyed at the moment.

You need to think though: Whose responsibility is it when Congress fails to uphold equal rights, and gerrymanders things in such a way that they cannot be voted out by the same minorities that they oppress?
 
2020-06-15 5:21:30 PM  

RussianPotato: That's how it works.  Congress MAKES law.  The president executes the laws.  The court interprets them.


Which is exactly what happened here. Glad we had this talk.
 
2020-06-15 5:22:28 PM  

Leishu: RussianPotato: Leishu: And so what happens to those people who live in areas which do no respect their right to not be discriminated against? Are they just an acceptable loss?

Congress.  Could.  Pass.  A.  Law.  Protecting.  Them.

That's how it works.  Congress MAKES law.  The president executes the laws.  The court interprets them.

When a court reinterprets a 50 year old law that had never provided such protections, to now provide such protections, it has rewritten the law and has usurped a power that belongs solely to congress.  No matter how laudable the goals may be.

I want you to calm down a second and think this through.  Realize that you do not want the court to have the power to write law.  They are unelected.  They are unaccountable.  Do you really want to give all of the powers of congress to the courts.  How about if Trump wins re election and gets another two judges on there?

I'm pretty calm. I'm actually overjoyed at the moment.

You need to think though: Whose responsibility is it when Congress fails to uphold equal rights, and gerrymanders things in such a way that they cannot be voted out by the same minorities that they oppress?


The people.

Your entire argument is "The ends justify the means."
 
2020-06-15 5:22:58 PM  

shut_it_down: RussianPotato: That's how it works.  Congress MAKES law.  The president executes the laws.  The court interprets them.

Which is exactly what happened here. Glad we had this talk.


Yup - As shown above, repeatedly, this was a 100 percent logical interpretation.
 
2020-06-15 5:23:49 PM  

RussianPotato: Leishu: RussianPotato: Leishu: And so what happens to those people who live in areas which do no respect their right to not be discriminated against? Are they just an acceptable loss?

Congress.  Could.  Pass.  A.  Law.  Protecting.  Them.

That's how it works.  Congress MAKES law.  The president executes the laws.  The court interprets them.

When a court reinterprets a 50 year old law that had never provided such protections, to now provide such protections, it has rewritten the law and has usurped a power that belongs solely to congress.  No matter how laudable the goals may be.

I want you to calm down a second and think this through.  Realize that you do not want the court to have the power to write law.  They are unelected.  They are unaccountable.  Do you really want to give all of the powers of congress to the courts.  How about if Trump wins re election and gets another two judges on there?

I'm pretty calm. I'm actually overjoyed at the moment.

You need to think though: Whose responsibility is it when Congress fails to uphold equal rights, and gerrymanders things in such a way that they cannot be voted out by the same minorities that they oppress?

The people.

Your entire argument is "The ends justify the means."


And yours is that the means justify the ends.

If the minority exists freely only at the whims of the majority, the system is irrevocably broken.
 
2020-06-15 5:34:34 PM  
The fact is that...

"Sex A can exhibit Gender Role A, but Sex B cannot"

Is sex discrimination. 100 percent of the time. Legislative intent can DIAF.
 
2020-06-15 5:42:23 PM  

shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you

As a lawyer who studied molecular genetics and developmental biology in undergrad... you need to stop. Human biology is incredibly complex and prone to weirdness, and that extends to sex determination. If you tell any biologist that a human with XY sex chromosomes identifies as a female, they won't bat an eye. There are several known ways in which that is known to occur, including damage to the Y chromosome or an unlikely crossover event where the genes responsible for triggering maleness are just not there anymore. That's not even getting into issues with epigenetic effects on the fetus or genetic, hormonal, or other conditions present in the mother that may have an effect on a person's development. None of those things takes a way the humanity of the child, but might very well have effects on the sexual identity or expression or identity of the child later on.

Your position that sex is binary and absolute is frankly pretty juvenile, and for you to trot it out with such unwavering confidence is embarrassing.

You are confusing morphology with function.

What?

Use a dictionary for the big words

Honey, it's not the definitions of the words that don't make sense. I'm confused by whatever the hell point you think you're making.

The function of sex is reproduction, sweetums. 1 sperm, 1 egg is binary. There arent any intermediate sex cells or a third discrete type. You position seems to be that the packaging the gametes comes in matters (morphology). There are intersex conditions, true. But you still need 1 sperm and 1 egg.

My position is that human biology is complex and prone to high degrees of variation, and people can't always be accurately distinguished into one of two absolute, binary sexes with some hard biological factor. I gave examples for why the sex chromosomes don't serve this purpose. You seem obsessed with gametes for some reason, but that doesn't work either. As other people pointed out, there are intersex people with sperm, eggs, both, or neither. Those people might also have some mixture of male and female sex organs or tissues. The fact that there are two kinds of gametes does not mean that sex itself is binary.


That's nature in general. Very few things fall into nice neat categories. There are almost always exceptions and almost always variation. That doesnt mean sex is on a spectrum.

A, B, both, or neither

I guess you could say that isnt a binary. I see where you are coming from. Id say its a quaternary, meaning there are 4 discrete positions. This isn't a spectrum either.

Plus the causes for intersex are multiple. These are discrete as well. This seems to be incompatible with a spectrum.

I get wanting to be inclusive. But my whole point is that sex serves a function independant of packaging. As you and I both agree that gametes can have a variety of packaging. Reproduction is what it's all about, not packaging. There are two possible gametes. This is a binary.
 
2020-06-15 5:43:19 PM  

Leishu: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Leishu: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Yes. And that is irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant to your comments, then maybe consider that your comments, which are in a thread about a Supreme Court decision on employment, which for most people has nothing to do with sexual reproduction, are irrelevant to the thread.

Maybe. Then why are you responding?

Because you're clogging up a thread about people getting equal rights with stupid obfuscations, and you deserve to get called on it.


You sure showed me.

/you must be new here
//welcome to fark.jpg
 
2020-06-15 5:43:26 PM  
This is a HUGE victory for personal freedom and totally unexpected during this sh[tshow presidency
 
2020-06-15 5:45:19 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Leishu: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Leishu: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Yes. And that is irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant to your comments, then maybe consider that your comments, which are in a thread about a Supreme Court decision on employment, which for most people has nothing to do with sexual reproduction, are irrelevant to the thread.

Maybe. Then why are you responding?

Because you're clogging up a thread about people getting equal rights with stupid obfuscations, and you deserve to get called on it.

You sure showed me.

/you must be new here
//welcome to fark.jpg


You: 2014-11-03 23:36:12 (5 years ago)
Me:2005-12-07 04:46:40 (14 years ago)

I just don't let bigots run wild in threads, because stupidity/bigotry is a far more harmful disease than COVID will ever be.
 
2020-06-15 5:48:18 PM  
Congratulations to all my 'murcan farker friends who are affected by this decision. You deserve this, it is long overdue.
 
2020-06-15 5:49:36 PM  

Leishu: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Leishu: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Leishu: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Yes. And that is irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant to your comments, then maybe consider that your comments, which are in a thread about a Supreme Court decision on employment, which for most people has nothing to do with sexual reproduction, are irrelevant to the thread.

Maybe. Then why are you responding?

Because you're clogging up a thread about people getting equal rights with stupid obfuscations, and you deserve to get called on it.

You sure showed me.

/you must be new here
//welcome to fark.jpg

You: 2014-11-03 23:36:12 (5 years ago)
Me:2005-12-07 04:46:40 (14 years ago)

I just don't let bigots run wild in threads, because stupidity/bigotry is a far more harmful disease than COVID will ever be.


Lol, you seem to be missing something here. You are my entertainment. Thank you.
 
2020-06-15 5:52:49 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Lol, you seem to be missing something here. You are my entertainment. Thank you.


Funny. I thought you were mine. Dumb trolls are usually pretty funny.
 
Displayed 50 of 728 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.