News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker protections. Parent comment

Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by Miner49er on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:33AM (#23528418)
On the other hand, the entire idea of transgenderism is based on sex. Without sex, transgenderism doesn't exist. So by discriminating on the basis of if a person is transgender, you are by extension discriminating based on their sex.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by treis on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:59AM (#23528815)
The counter to this would be that these bans aren't discriminatory on the basis of sex because the same rule applies to both sexes. It all depends on how you want to look at it. It can either be:

(1) People can't have same sex relations

(2) Women can have relations with men but men can't have relations with men.

Practically they are the same, but (2) discriminates on the basis of sex while (1) does not.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by evan_ on Monday June 15, 2020 @12:12PM (#23528980)
> Practically they are the same

If they are the same then how can one way of stating it be discriminatory and the other not discriminatory? It's just word games. If the effect is discriminatory why does it matter how you wrote the law?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by treis on Monday June 15, 2020 @12:45PM (#23529412)
They're both discriminatory. The question is what are you discriminating against?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by TheCoelacanth on Monday June 15, 2020 @04:35PM (#23532653)
(1) references the subject's sex less directly, but it is clearly still referencing it, and thus is discriminating based on sex.
[ Parent | on HN ]