It's what I said, but not what I mean. That is an issue before the supreme court. Fact is, it's not the first time and won't be the last. The very reason the court only issues an opinion. In their opinion that is what was meant! Somebody has to decide. In this last instance the court will issue an opinion on whether sex and gender are interchangeable. In the context of the wording in Title Vll does sex mean gender identity? That is to say, if you are biologicaly a male but believe you are a female, or want to be a female, or dress like a female, is that your sex? Title Vll prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, national origin and religion. The question to be answered is, does sex, in that context, include whatever gender you identify as? Reading a little further race and color are apparently considered separate things as they are listed separately. National origin and religion are self explanatory. The only thing there is it has to be a recognized religion as defined/accepted by the United States government. The reason for that is simple enough, if I get to just say " it's my religious practice " and that exempts me from the rule of law, I could just do as I pleased. It's really the same thinking behind sex and gender. If I just get to choose what gender I want to be at any given moment that certainly opens up all avenues doesn't it? Ladies night, I get the discount on drinks, the ladies dressing rooms, available to me whenever I want, and the list goes on. So, what does it mean?
We can all agree that discrimination based on sex is unacceptable. I don't believe anyone is attempting to say that it is. Sex in this instance meaning gender. We have to remember this was written in 1964. Sensibilities were a bit different back then. Title Vll was intended to change that. Women could work out of the home, women could do what was traditionally considered a mans' trade, like mechanic or carpenter. And yes there was discrimination based on everything else, race, color, national origin and religion. In 1961 when JFK was elected there was much concern that he was a Catholic! That's correct, what was commonly called a Papist! The fear was the Pope would dictate policy to the President. Jewish people weren't exactly treated with equal respect either! In 1964 saying or even writing the word sex was a bit edgy. Gender identity issues were considered a mental issue! In fact it wasn't until 2013 that the World Health Organization changed transgenderism from a mental disorder and began calling it gender dysphoria. I'm not offering an opinion on that, just saying that is the history of that. So I'd say in 1964 when they wrote sex they were thinking of gender but felt no need to further delineate that, after all, if you believed your sex wasn't what your body showed it was, you were considered a little bit off. That's 1964. Fifty five years ago. I'd say sensibilities have changed significantly. Still, what is sensible has not changed.
So perhaps Title Vll needs to be revised, I'll leave that decision up to you. Discrimination is wrong, do we really need to write it down. Unfortunately we do. Why, because there are those that will say the law doesn't say I can't. Does it change their attitude or feelings? Nope. It just acts as a deterrent to them, to avoid bad consequences. My question is doesn't the employer deserve equal protection? That is to say, choose who they want to represent their business? What if the person identifies as a clown and wants to wear a clown suit all day, do I have to hire that person? Now I agree I shouldn't be able to discriminate against a person based on gender, race, color, national origin and religion. I do think I can choose to discriminate in hiring an employee. To discriminate is to recognize a distinction, to differentiate or perceive a difference. Yes I said discriminate, but that's not what I mean. See how that works?
We can all agree that discrimination based on sex is unacceptable. I don't believe anyone is attempting to say that it is. Sex in this instance meaning gender. We have to remember this was written in 1964. Sensibilities were a bit different back then. Title Vll was intended to change that. Women could work out of the home, women could do what was traditionally considered a mans' trade, like mechanic or carpenter. And yes there was discrimination based on everything else, race, color, national origin and religion. In 1961 when JFK was elected there was much concern that he was a Catholic! That's correct, what was commonly called a Papist! The fear was the Pope would dictate policy to the President. Jewish people weren't exactly treated with equal respect either! In 1964 saying or even writing the word sex was a bit edgy. Gender identity issues were considered a mental issue! In fact it wasn't until 2013 that the World Health Organization changed transgenderism from a mental disorder and began calling it gender dysphoria. I'm not offering an opinion on that, just saying that is the history of that. So I'd say in 1964 when they wrote sex they were thinking of gender but felt no need to further delineate that, after all, if you believed your sex wasn't what your body showed it was, you were considered a little bit off. That's 1964. Fifty five years ago. I'd say sensibilities have changed significantly. Still, what is sensible has not changed.
So perhaps Title Vll needs to be revised, I'll leave that decision up to you. Discrimination is wrong, do we really need to write it down. Unfortunately we do. Why, because there are those that will say the law doesn't say I can't. Does it change their attitude or feelings? Nope. It just acts as a deterrent to them, to avoid bad consequences. My question is doesn't the employer deserve equal protection? That is to say, choose who they want to represent their business? What if the person identifies as a clown and wants to wear a clown suit all day, do I have to hire that person? Now I agree I shouldn't be able to discriminate against a person based on gender, race, color, national origin and religion. I do think I can choose to discriminate in hiring an employee. To discriminate is to recognize a distinction, to differentiate or perceive a difference. Yes I said discriminate, but that's not what I mean. See how that works?
No comments:
Post a Comment