News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The moral case against equity language. Parent comment

Re:The moral case against equity language by JumpCrisscross on Friday March 03, 2023 @12:51AM (#35006274)
> we're making laws that use the word woman we need to have a stringent definition

Not ex ante. That’s the strength of common law. If you have a problem with this, consider why we need laws which define womanhood. (Yes, I am an ERA proponent.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The moral case against equity language by undersuit on Friday March 03, 2023 @12:55AM (#35006285)
I don't know why we need laws that define woman or womanhood. Would you offer an example?

An ERA proponent is in reference to an Equal Rights Amendment?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The moral case against equity language by JumpCrisscross on Friday March 03, 2023 @12:58AM (#35006306)
> don't know why we need laws that define woman or womanhood

I don’t. And I’m struggling to play devil’s advocate, which is uncommon.

> ERA proponent is in reference to an Equal Rights Amendment

Yes.

[ Parent | on HN ]