As I suggested in a comment on another post, I can’t wait for them to play the discrimination on the basis of gender identity card. ‘Cos if they let boys who identify as trans or non-binary compete in girls’ sport, while keeping other boys out … well, folks, that is straight-up discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
What is completely mind-blowing to me is that I don't think I have ever seen an attorney articulate this perfectly accurate legal argument in any case, not the Korean Spa cases, not the USA Powerlifting case, etc.
I’ve said it here and elsewhere 1000 times, that nobody is discriminating against these lunatics because they are trans or non-binary or identify as women. They are discriminating because these lunatics are men. so, duh, not on the basis of gender identity, but on the basis of sex - in contexts where discrimination on the basis of sex has long been established as legal.
But if there is discrimination on the basis of gender identity, then it’s not against these lunatics, it’s against the men who don’t claim a magical gender identity and therefore are not allowed into women’s spaces.
Thank you for acknowledging how pathetic it is that lawyers who are raking in 800, 1200, 2K an hour can’t figure out how to make that argument.
Usually the lawyers arguing on the side of excluding men aren't raking in that kind of money. I look at the Olympus Spa case and they have some junior varsity ADF type Christian legal organization representing them. They are litigating with an agenda of getting special rights for Christians, not protecting women.
General women's fitness discussion belongs at /o/Fitness.
If you are posting a link, it should be directly relevant to the topic of sex-segregation in sports.
If your link is not directly on topic but you would like to use it to start a discussion that is on topic, make a text post including your link and commentary that puts it into context. Posts that link to something off-topic will be removed, even if comments provide context.
As I suggested in a comment on another post, I can’t wait for them to play the discrimination on the basis of gender identity card. ‘Cos if they let boys who identify as trans or non-binary compete in girls’ sport, while keeping other boys out … well, folks, that is straight-up discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
What is completely mind-blowing to me is that I don't think I have ever seen an attorney articulate this perfectly accurate legal argument in any case, not the Korean Spa cases, not the USA Powerlifting case, etc.
IKR?
I’ve said it here and elsewhere 1000 times, that nobody is discriminating against these lunatics because they are trans or non-binary or identify as women. They are discriminating because these lunatics are men. so, duh, not on the basis of gender identity, but on the basis of sex - in contexts where discrimination on the basis of sex has long been established as legal.
But if there is discrimination on the basis of gender identity, then it’s not against these lunatics, it’s against the men who don’t claim a magical gender identity and therefore are not allowed into women’s spaces.
Thank you for acknowledging how pathetic it is that lawyers who are raking in 800, 1200, 2K an hour can’t figure out how to make that argument.
Usually the lawyers arguing on the side of excluding men aren't raking in that kind of money. I look at the Olympus Spa case and they have some junior varsity ADF type Christian legal organization representing them. They are litigating with an agenda of getting special rights for Christians, not protecting women.