(from the bill) this: “Both LGBTQ people and women” and this: “LGBTQ people, especially transgender people and women” are phrased so strangely. i know what they’re getting at but the first one makes it seem like LGBTQ excludes women and the second makes it seem like there are not transgender women.
this provision is good:
No negative inference.—Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to support any inference that any Federal law prohibiting a practice on the basis of sex does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, sexual orientation, gender identity, or a sex stereotype.
but i can"t help but wonder if their definition of sexual orientation is too limiting
SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality
if their definition of sexual orientation is too limiting
How so? Wouldn’t you consider “bisexuality” covers queerness?
definitions of bisexuality vary from person to person. for some people it would cover the entire queer umbrella, for others it is two genders, for others still, two or more.
my wondering if it is too exclusive is not because of the definition of bisexuality (whatever it may be defined to be) but because if someone identifies as pansexual, for example, they may be more readily discriminated against post- (potential) enaction of this law (because the law does not explicitly include pansexuality). also, as zeroaesthetic mentioned, asexuality exists.
perhaps an alternative would be something like “The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, and other related sexual identities”.
if someone identifies as pansexual, for example, they may be more readily discriminated against post- (potential) enaction of this law (because the law does not explicitly include pansexuality).
That’s a good point I hadn’t considered.
The problem really boils down to, they didn’t define sexual orientation so much as they gave examples of it.
true but i don’t think they are actually trying to describe sexual orientation. this is a legal definition, for the language of the acts it is proposing to change. so it basically is saying “when you see ‘sexual orientation’ in the act, we mean ‘homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality’”
sidenote - i almost never see bills in such plain english. i was surprised because i have read a lot of legislation and much of it is so d e n s e (often, i imagine, to prevent regular people from understanding)
To be honest i was kind of surprised (and happy) bisexuality was mentioned at all in the original proposal. I understand your concerns they make perfect sense, the reactionary discourse will always find ways to adapt to whatever discourse is deemed legit/legal.
Thanks for taking the time to explain!
no problem :)
I personally don’t think there’s a difference between bisexuality and pansexuality, but asexual is a thing.
I agree with you, however i don’t know of any structural oppression against asexuality? I mean there’s strong incentives to have children and there may be interpersonal judgement around the topic but i don’t believe anyone has “mandatory sexual relationships” on their political agenda. Am i missing something?
No, there’s no structural oppression against asexuality, but there’s also no structural oppression against heterosexuality, and the latter is explicitly mentioned as a sexual orientation in the bill.
Don’t you believe the addition of hetero and bi sexuality explicitly in the list was calculated to defuse progressive/reactionary opposition in advance? If heterosexuality wasn’t on there people on the right would have claimed “it’s a secret lgbt plot to criminalize heterosexuality”, or at least i believe so
but i see your point thanks, not trying to nitpick :)
Uh, no, I think they were included in the list because it would be incorrect to say that sexual orientation just means homosexuality. (And why do you lump hetero- and bisexuality together? Bisexuality is still a form of queerness.)
Heterosexuality is listed because leaving it out would open the bill up to equal protections challenges.
Public school doesn’t like Bastiat’s The Law…
I do not share state interventionism … the government is abusive towards citizens, obeying the private interests of those who finance political campaigns.
It’s enough to respect human rights based on natural law, in general. But this modified language and validating subjective self-perceptions really borders on distorting reality.
Such a kind of propaganda is not protection. ¿protection of who? and on the other hand, in order to have a TRUE “equality and freedom for all” ¿who can protect people from stolen eleccions and from the Big tech?
the government is abusive towards citizens, obeying the private interests of those who finance political campaigns.
true, but doesn’t mean you should discard and oppose literally everything that the government does, especially if it is a good thing
It’s enough to respect human rights based on natural law, in general.
what exactly does that mean? the way something happens in nature doesn’t mean it is automatically a good thing, this is classic appeal to nature fallacy
this modified language and validating subjective self-perceptions really borders on distorting reality
lgbt is not about “validating false self-perceptions”, it’s about maximizing human happiness, it’s about making it easier for any person to live a better and happier live
people’s identity is a complex combination of biological gender, psychology and social practices, it’s very much different from saying that one identifies as an attack helicopter and then demanding absurd things as many far-fight people would want you to believe
Such a kind of propaganda is not protection. ¿protection of who?
lgbt people face systematic discrimination such as mocking and refusal to accept from the general public, inability to access proper medical care, trans people ending up in prisons of opposite gender etc etc
and this is by no means a worst case scenario, in most parts of the world lgbt live much much more miserable lives, if at all (in many places people are tortured and killed for their identity)
and on the other hand, in order to have a TRUE “equality and freedom for all” ¿who can protect people from stolen eleccions and from the Big tech?
sooo because we can’t have both a fair political system and lbgt right we might as well refuse them both? this makes no sense…
