Re: “JK Rowling Details Cost Of Speaking Out On Trans Issue, Blasts NYT ‘Rewriting Of History’”

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 18:21:38 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/15/2024 10:26 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 00:51:27 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 04/12/2024 02:00, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Paul S Person  <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>
What is strange is that the obvious solution -- four teams/leagues
instead of two -- does not appear to have occurred to anyone.

>
Or just one for all genders.
--scott

>
Are we talking about sports teams or about
"debating" gender and transgender issues?
I thought Paul was referring to the latter.

 
I was, and I think the rejoinder is too.
 
To be sure, it completely ignores the reason we have boys and girls
teams/leagues/tournaments/awards in the first place. And the reason
Federal Law requires (IIRC) schools receiving Federal Funds to have
girls teams/leagues/tournaments/awards that are provided just as
seriously as the boys' teams/leagues/tournaments/awards are.
 
Note that the Supremes have already ruled that at least one part of
Federal Law concerning "discrimination by sex" /does/ apply to
transgender. IIRC, they were astounded that this wasn't clear to
everybody and that they had to point it out.
 
A certain D. Trump will, of course, shortly be reversing all of this.
Or at least trying to do so.

>
Please point to the decision by SCOTUS that says that discrimination
applies to transgenders.

I don't have a reference. This was some time back.

IIRC, it involved a business claiming that it was not discriminating
by sex (or possibly "gender", IANAL and may be putting one where I
should be putting the other) when it discriminated against a trans
employee.

The SC response was (essentially, IANAL): the action was /clearly/
based on the victim's gender (or sex -- again, IANAL), and so clearly
forbidden by the law. They did not buy the argument that, at the time
the law was passed, "trans" did not exist as a (legal) concept and so
the law did not include it when passed and so still did not.

Basically, the company lost because they claimed that ketchup was a
vegetable. Which a Republican President once did, to help public
schools wanting to avoid including vegetables in their meals. His
assertion crashed and burned too, but in the Press, not the SC.

This is not the same as the situation in school-related sports, where
discrimination by gender (or sex, IANAL) is allowed in locker rooms,
showers, teams, leagues, and awards and the issue is "Which gender (or
sex, IANAL) are trans players to be treated as?". Here, the
discrimination is in place and very few, if any, are disputing it.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"