Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote...
by jakkyboi on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:55AM
(#23528772)
No you're completely right, the argument they make is quite correct: the discrimination is based on preconceived notions of who a certain sex is allowed to present as or be attracted to.
The correct term would be the majority, or assenters maybe
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote...
by throwaway_pdp09 on Monday June 15, 2020 @12:42PM
(#23529365)
> there are a number of other characteristics of humans that are currently classified as sexual attractions and not orientations but which some scientists think should be reclassified based on the biological/neurological basis as we better understand the difference between a preference and an orientation.
Could you give some further info please. You're talking distinctions that mean nothing to me. How could sexual attraction not be orientation or preference? It just doesn't make sense.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote...
by basch on Monday June 15, 2020 @01:55PM
(#23530586)
A blanket policy ban on hiring people attracted to women, or people attracted to both sexes, or attracted to neither sex. The court did not add "sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes, they just said that firing a man for being attracted to a man, but not firing a woman for being attracted to a man is discrimination based on the sex of the employee.
It seems like a six of one half dozen of another distinction, but I think it may become a factor when you start considering other sexual orientations. Primarily asexual individuals, but there are a number of other characteristics of humans that are currently classified as sexual attractions and not orientations but which some scientists think should be reclassified based on the biological/neurological basis as we better understand the difference between a preference and an orientation.