Sex discrimination inherently includes discrimination on homosexuality, transsexualism, etc.

I’ve been saying this for years, but hey, looks like the courts are getting on board.

The linked article includes some statements in opposition, but they’re generally terrible. First, a brief argument for the statement in the title of this post. If you’re going to support equality across sexes, then you’re going to support that for all x, if x is permissible for one sex, then x is permissible for all sexes. (There are other understandings of how to use the word “equality”, but those are clearly not the ones in play here.) So, if it’s okay for people of any particular sex to be attracted to women, then it’s okay for people of any sex at all to be attracted to women. And so on.

Jeff Sessions said,

Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination between men and women but does not encompass discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender status.

I’m curious what action Jeff thinks is unique to the transgender “status”. To use the case in the article as an example, there’s nothing Stephens is doing against any rule, unless there are some sex-specific rules. There is no way to state his objection to Stephens’s case completely without reference to her sex.

The employer, Rost, said he wants to run his business in accordance with his religion that says that

a person’s sex (whether male or female) is an immutable God-given gift and that people should not deny or attempt to change their sex.

I’d be really curious to see which religion says you cannot employ people who deny or attempt to change their sex. I’ll admit I’m only a little into the iceberg of religion, but rules for employers seem to be generally sparse, and I’ve never seen anything approaching this.

Posner said,

It is well-nigh certain that homosexuality, male or female, did not figure in the minds of the legislators who enacted Title VII,”

He then proceeded to say the meaning of “sex” can be updated to include homosexuality. But that’s unnecessary. There’s no way to discriminate against homosexuals without also discriminating on the basis of sex.

Observations on the non-normal perspective on gendered interactions given by bisexuality (and probably other non-monosexualities)

The first observation: Jealousy is a common theme across relationships. There’s probably a TV Tropes page for it, but I’m not going down that rabbit hole tonight. But I imagine everyone is familiar with the stereotype of one (usually straight) partner forbidding the other from interacting with anyone of the same gender/sex as the forbidding partner. E.g. a girlfriend telling her boyfriend not to talk with any other women. I once saw someone suggest no men should ever spent significant time with any married women.

That sort of thing doesn’t really work for bisexuals. To forbid spending time with anyone else is just absurd. So the only option is to acknowledge that your partner may have friendships with people they may, if they’re not in a relationship already, date.

The second observation: At least according to what I’ve seen, monosexuals have an entire gender of people that are simply beyond the realm of romantic or sexual attraction. Thoughts of those varieties simply don’t come up seriously. (This probably has a lot to do with the possibility of the first observation.)  Bisexuals of course still have some people whom are not seriously considered those ways (because of age, familial relations, etc.), but the pool is much smaller. The assumed lines are much fewer, so more consideration is required.

The Fight We Have Left

On the /r/TumblrInAction subreddit, in a comment, /u/Be3Al2Si6O18 said

> The problem now is that we have a generation with very little to fight for

I disagree, which I think makes the problem you outline worse. Has the battle been won for a lot of groups’ legal rights and at least popular opinion? For the most part. In the Western world, anyhow. Being black or gay won’t get you in legal trouble. Being LGBT or irreligious might get you kicked out of the house if you’re a kid with your parents. Homicide rates are still pretty disproportionate (and while you can handwave racial disparities with wealth disparities, gay people and transsexuals come from all wealth classes pretty randomly).

Which really gets to the yet bigger issue of labour and wealth disparity. Somehow the left in moving to identity politics has neglected to fight for labour and in that time wealth disparities have soared in quite a few countries. Hell, race in America was invented as a concept to make the lower class fight amongst themselves before they’d realize they’d be better off overthrowing the guy cracking the whip. In the richest country in the world people are dying because they don’t have enough money and we’ve somehow become afraid to demand a distribute of wealth that works better for all of society rather than the short term interests of a select few.

There’s a shitload of fighting left to do.

Of course, part of the issue of bad focus comes from who’s doing the shifting. The big civil rights movements generally came from a more desperate point. But the people moving the focus to shit like otherkin generally have a good amount of comfort otherwise. Hell, they spend half the day on tumblr. That’s not encouraging to go out and fight. But it’s sure as hell a more comfortable target for the media to look at than bigger issues with either a smaller affected group (transsexuals being killed) or that might hurt those with extant power (wealth disparity).

Some People Following the Crowd Doesn’t Diminish the Reasons Behind the Movement (A response to Hans Fiene)

Hans Fiene says the move to legalize gay marriage is merely the result of a desire to imitate the Civil Rights Movement.  His article has a number of issues, from making false claims to false equivocations, but it can be taken in sequence.

He first establishes that the current generation learned about the greatness of the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement as a sort of sainthood, and now we want our own movement to run to be good ourselves. He also reduces the issue to standing up for a cause others aren’t rather than standing up for a cause because we ought to.

The first alternative he proposes is the unborn. He claims the anti-abortion movement isn’t gaining ground because of cost. Outlawing abortion would require a new approach to sex, which would change the lives of many people now forced to risk an unwanted child if they want to have sex. Of course, he conveniently ignores every argument for the right to abortion, including the defense of bodily autonomy, the defense of privacy, and the common consensus that a fetus is not a person.

His second alternative he proposes is poverty. He ignores the push for a state-sponsored fight to end poverty, implicitly stating that if we aren’t personally giving money (due to having a negative net wealth) then we aren’t at all in support of the cause.

This brings us to gay people. Gay people have something in common with another group that the current generation is in wide support of: women. The problems of the gay and female populations both arise primarily not from something tangible like scarcity of resources, but from the minds of others. Equal treatment can be obtained through changing minds, since minds are the source of the problems. Changing minds is a feasible goal for individuals to embark on.

His statement

Of course we know that politely telling a customer you’ve served for nine years that you can’t, in good conscience,provide flowers for his wedding isn’t in the same moral universe as murdering a black teenager for talking to a white woman.

gets a spotlight on the side of the page. He’s chosen two completely different examples, and I could just as easily say the hate murders committed against gay people are of much greater magnitude than refusing to cater a biracial wedding.

He slips in the tired argument that an inherently-childless couple shouldn’t qualify for marriage, ignoring the tired rebuttal that if we take a child-only definition of marriage, post-menopausal women and all people incapable of reproducing need to be banned, yet nobody is calling for a ban on elder marriage.

Fiene also has an issue with Takei’s protesting the RFRA via boycott. Why using the tools you have at your disposal is a bad thing is left unexplained. Perhaps a cause is only righteous if it comes from a point of low power. (In which case any non-Christian religion in the US is poised for a righteous movement.) He goes into a general complaint against the complains against the RFRA, claiming it’s not a big deal, but Benjamin Studebaker covers quite nicely why it is a big deal and his continued comparison to other states is unfounded.

Are there legitimate problems within the movements Fiene has issues with? Sure. Gay marriage has gotten a bigger spotlight than housing and employment discrimination as well as hate crimes. As it turns out, love is easier to market than being anti-discrimination or anti-anything else. Hence why anti-abortionists prefer the term pro-life, even if they take decidedly anti-life stances on other issues. The RFRA also had bigger issues than refusing to cater a wedding: it more or less allowed the law to be ignored by hiding behind a religion. Employers could negate the health insurance laws by claiming parts of it violate their religion. Legislation by a democratic state could be vetoed by religious entities.

Fiene doesn’t take this route, though. He makes a strike against the gay marriage movement by pointing out the fact that some people have self-interested motivations and a bit of Civil Rights hero worship. However he also abuses any instance where he makes the movement look weak to attack the cause itself. Moreover, he ignores parts of the movement that fight things like hate crimes and parts like Stonewall that have taken serious action. Sure most people participate because they want to be good, but that hardly diminishes the core reasons for why equality is the right direction.