GenderLife Forum: The Information Exchange

1 Vote(s)

Source: Appeals court upholds firing of transsexual - Salt Lake Tribune

Fair use brief quotation:
>> The 44-year-old Salt Lake County resident was born a biological male and given the name "Michael." She has been diagnosed with Adult Gender Identity Disorder and always believed she was born with the wrong anatomical sex organs, according to the appeals court, which uses feminine pronouns when referring to Etsitty. <<

And there we have it!

It may well be that Ms. Etsitty is a woman with a physical and legal problem of male genitalia and documentation. Rather than a mentally ill man with a Gender identity Disorder.

But once she accepts a GID diagnosis under pressure of the WPATH-SOC then she is immediately estopped from using that argument (of being a misclassified woman) and her her protection under Federal law (title VII) is voluntarily (albeit unknowingly) given up. That's one of gender psychiatry's purposes - to remove legal protections that transfolk have if they completely avoid mental health professionals.

For the court to use female pronouns and then go on to declare she is a man in matters of law - is simply choosing to mock her and those who follow her in suffering similar discrimination.

"Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" - an oxymoron if ever there was one.

She was fired for what?

She had not started using the womens restrooms and there were no complaints from anyone!

She was fired so the UTA could protect their asses from probable lawsuits filed by who, other women.

This is the Amici brief put forth by the ACLU,
http://www.acluutah.org/etsittybrief.pdf

What I find interesting about this is that nowhere that I can find in the Title VII statue language are there definitions for race, color, sex, or national origin--terms that are used repeatedly in the statutes. "Religion" is defined, and even "person" is actually defined, but not the others. It does define "because of sex" and "on the basis of sex" to:

"include, but are not limited to [emphasis added], because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment­related purposes"

It really does not define "sex" as it is used in the civil rights act. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) web site states that "Title VII also prohibits employment decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions about abilities, traits, or the performance of individuals on the basis of sex."

Stereotypes and assumptions about traits based on sex??
Hmmmmmmm....

But . . .

Then I realized that "race" is not defined anywhere in the statutes either. I poked around those statutes looking for a clear definition of race, and couldn't find one. So I went back to the EEOC website and found under a section titled "Questions and Answers About Race and Color Discrimination in Employment" this statement:

What is "Race"?
Title VII does not contain a definition of "race." Race discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of ancestry or physical or cultural characteristics associated with a certain race, such as skin color, hair texture or styles, or certain facial features.

Besides the blunder of using the term to define itself that we all learned not to do in elementary school, it uses "physical or cultural characteristics", and "certain facial features" as definitions of "race" as it applies to protection under the Civil Rights Act. Besides the physical and cultural characteristics that are clearly common to all of us, there's this "facial features" thing. Now, I don't normally like to draw attention to my facial features, but let's face it (no pun intended), no one usually looks up your skirt before you go into a public restroom or get hired for a job, despite how you may be dressed, they look at you FACIAL FEATURES to make judgements about who you are and where you belong.

The Dictionary.com definition under Race²:
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition under ³Race:
2. b.: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
3. c.: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

My dear ladies,
ARE WE A RACE?

More distinctly, are we a RACE protected against discrimination by the Civil Rights Act??

Perhaps the sex/gender thing has been a little too limiting in seeking protection against discriminiation.

"The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups."
-U.S. Census Bureau

Yes, exactly! There is no scientific definition of race. It applies to a group of people who have a strong connection through common history, genetics, or experience, and "race" is explicitly protected under Title VII. Based just on the Census Bureau definition, we could easily be considered a "race". In addition, we can be considered a race that has been historically subject to long-term, persistent, and systematic discrimination and violence.