Ironically, no. Again, sexual orientation is not covered under Title VII of the CRA, or at least not explicitly--though there are a few opinions (including one by Scalia, surprisingly) that lend weight to the EEOC's aggressive enforcement of the law. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm The bolded and underlined gets to the real meat of this topic.
LOL, you're failing to follow along in conversation again....SMH. I guess that's your thing, you fail to follow along, spout some talking points that others fed you then claim victory later. Oh well, feel free to keep that up but it doesn't make for intelligent conversation. Anyway, I'm just going to move on to those who do a better job of following along in conversation.
Sure Bobby, feel great talking about legal or psychological issues without understanding a ******* thing about either. Ring back when you've ever read a legal opinion in your life or when you finish skimming through the Wiki of the DSM.
LOL I don't doubt that you feel great talking about legal or psychological issues despite you not understanding a ******* thing about either....I mean it's pretty obvious. Of course given that you can't seem to follow along in a pretty straight forward conversation, I doubt anyone expected you to know anything of value.
You seem to be in a dissociative state right now--this is about as much sense as you've ever made. Okay, you want to give up the boat on this thread or me? so be it. suffer in silence I'm not worried about you anyways, 10 years later, you'll probably be saying the same s**t about this current debate as you are about same-sex marriage. peace to the Middle East
Oh, I'll still talk about the issue with those intelligent enough to have a good conversation about it, I'm just not going to continue with you because you are clearly a lost cause.
You know what? How about one more attempt? Since you think you understand this issue, how is it supposed to work legally? How would you allow people to randomly pick their sex and gender and still have single sex facilities? Are you proposing the end of all single sex facilities? How about single sex organizations? I mean, it would seem that anyone could join simply by claiming to be of that sex at that moment would it not? You've spouted quite a bit of nonsense, let's see if you can further the conversation with something of value here. I like giving people chances.
Bahaha, first of all, f**k your chances. It'll be easier if you just sit still like a punching bag. If you want to shut up with regards to me that's fine with me. But ugh. First of all, you still don't understand the difference between sex or gender. You cannot just change your sex on a whim. That kinda requires a lot more surgery than you think it does. As for gender binaries, I myself don't give a s**t about what you're lamenting about (randomly picking seems a bit better than arbitrarily assigned, which gender is), but it seems you suffer from a profound ignorance on how easy it is to "change gender identity" on a whim. This applies to the United States. I don't understand what advantage is to be gained by somebody who is looking to transition besides expressing their identity and undergoing a whole lot of hurt. No, you don't just show up and say "WHOOSH I'M A WOMAN" to get fired without legal protections, and confined to special bathrooms of your own.
In reality, there is no way to change your sex through surgery or any other means. We're not dealing with reality here, we're dealing with tranny nonsense so the reason I put it that way was because in most of the legislation that seeks "bathroom equality" they seek to equate one's sex to their gender. I probably should have assumed you'd fail to understand that and that you would try to dodge the questions with BS related to that. I also should have assumed that you'd fail to understand this part as well, the legislation proposed in most "bathroom equality" laws suggests that gender and sex are things that are not concrete and can be changed at will. I guess you don't really understand what was being pushed since they didn't include that part in your talking points. Unsurprisingly you wasted the opportunity I so kindly gave you to redeem yourself by answering simple questions by answering literally none of them. This is yet another example of why conversation with you is pointless, you can't even answer simple questions about the basis of your position that would further the conversation. It's simply too much for you.
You can't understand the difference between sex and gender, and you can change sex through surgery...that's why it's called sex reassignment surgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_surgery You know, the medical prescription for gender dysphoria? You're not even that amusing to mock to be honest. Homework assignment: find the nearest table. Bang your head on it. 50 times. Try not to be stuck in a blatant lie. What are you going to do, quote the APA that agrees with me at me? https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf
You do realize Title VII is pointless? I understand that when 13% of the population is black, its a little harder to skirt this law, but at .03% its pretty useless unless the offending party is a complete moron and admits to out right discrimination.
yeah, you'd think that but... https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/selected/lgbt_facts.cfm The ability to the EEOC to enforce strongly on that across inconsistent state and local laws is very much at the core of the issue here, which above all else, is irrational discrimination.
Don't be. There's a segment of society that always contends that the market should be left to handle discrimination. The idea being that business owners want to make money so they'll serve as many people as possible or hire the best people. The reality is that history documents this idea doesn't work.
Maybe one day you'll figure out how to answer questions without dodging them in favor of different topics and questions but I kind of doubt it.
Your question has a flawed premise. gender and sex are f**king different, get it through your head. Gender is not "concrete", not that I know what you think of when you think of concrete given how bad you are not defining terms properly.
Of course they are different, but the laws you are championing are fighting for them to be defined as functionally the same thing, using the definition of gender for both. I already explained that to you....maybe this time will be different but I doubt it, you've never followed along with conversations well. I know that I'm talking about things that weren't in your talking points when you were issued your opinion on this subject, so just try to do the best you can. What is funny is that in this attempt to deflect instead of answer the question, you bring up something that those against the legislation that you are championing brought up as reasons for why it was bad and should be voted down. The reason they are trying to do so is so that people can't say that the men's restroom is for the male sex and the women's restroom is for the female sex, doing so would basically negate what they were trying to do and would keep things essentially the same. There's lots of problems with the proposed legislation from a functional standpoint, that's just one of them. Clearly I know that there is a difference between sex and gender, but I'm not the idiot pushing bad legislation, you are. Maybe one day you'll get around to answering the questions instead of dodging them, who knows?
NS, you're getting giddy and Bobby trolled in the same thread. I think you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize now or a Darwin award. Could go either way there.
the reason why you find me slow at "talking in conversation with you" is because you bring up idiotic points. Your thinking shows a whole bunch of flaws and you step face-first into a wall of facts most times, but you also don't know what the f**k you're talking about. http://www.thestranger.com/slog/201...le-was-absolutely-not-protected-under-the-law So no, the laws I champion won't change sex-segregated bathrooms to the degree you seem to be thinking they will. I ultimately think the way society defines gender is dumb, antiquated, and will ultimately, as it always has, change away from the strict binary, but it'll take time for that. Here's my talking point: the current way we define gender as a society is moronic, causes excessive harm, and with the gradual destruction of antiquated family systems, will die the death it deserves. However, the moderate part of me points out that the Supreme Court will at least protect people from prejudices in the meanwhile. At the threat of "seeking a mutual resolution among the parties".
