I want to register my disagreement with your reading of the Bostock decision.
As I read the majority opinion and its analysis, the court held that - on the basis of the Price Waterhouse decision which prohibited use of sex-based stereotypes in employment under Title VII, the employer-defendants in Bostock were deemed to have discriminated against the male plaintiffs in hiring/firing on the basis of sex-based stereotypes - that men ought to be heterosexual, and that they ought not act like women (especially with respect to dress). The opinion made clear that the parties stipulated the existence of two sexes: male and female, and cited Price Waterhouse in support of the holding; Price Waterhouse addressed sex-stereotypes of women in employment decision-making (in that case, advancement). Which means Bostock should properly be understood as a "reverse sex-discrimination" case - and was rightly decided. No one should be subject to sex-stereotypes in employment under Title VII. I hope that FAIR will not contribute amicus filings using any other analysis of the holding of a case which appears to sex-based reasoning to keep employment decisions free from sex-stereotypes - for both women and men.
With respect to gender identity ideology - I certainly hope FAIR (and FIRE) will do whatever it can to protect the rights of women (and men) to assemble publicly and to openly air their views about the matter without fear of censure or violence. As an advocate for the rights and welfare of women and children, I consider gender identity ideology a men's sexual rights movement that is abusing the medical establishment and legal system to further its own agenda.
The facts:
There are men in women's prison cells (and consequent rapes).
Sexual and other assault victims are being compelled testify in language other than their own language (to wit: preferred pronouns) in court.
There are women who cannot obtain legal representation in malpractice cases against surgeon's experimenting on their bodies with disastrous results.
Regressive sex stereotypes have become the standard by which childhood is regulated, and the ordinary challenges of puberty have been pathologized.
Parents are at risk of losing custody of their children for attempting to protect them from the social contagion of gender identity ideology.
Citizens run the risk of losing employment for registering their dissent publicly, if they can, before they are banned from social media platforms. Women are subjected to violence in public fora for protesting in defense of women and children.
It's about time we legal professionals stand up to stop this nonsense.
What is missing from the transgender bathroom debate
I want to register my disagreement with your reading of the Bostock decision.
As I read the majority opinion and its analysis, the court held that - on the basis of the Price Waterhouse decision which prohibited use of sex-based stereotypes in employment under Title VII, the employer-defendants in Bostock were deemed to have discriminated against the male plaintiffs in hiring/firing on the basis of sex-based stereotypes - that men ought to be heterosexual, and that they ought not act like women (especially with respect to dress). The opinion made clear that the parties stipulated the existence of two sexes: male and female, and cited Price Waterhouse in support of the holding; Price Waterhouse addressed sex-stereotypes of women in employment decision-making (in that case, advancement). Which means Bostock should properly be understood as a "reverse sex-discrimination" case - and was rightly decided. No one should be subject to sex-stereotypes in employment under Title VII. I hope that FAIR will not contribute amicus filings using any other analysis of the holding of a case which appears to sex-based reasoning to keep employment decisions free from sex-stereotypes - for both women and men.
With respect to gender identity ideology - I certainly hope FAIR (and FIRE) will do whatever it can to protect the rights of women (and men) to assemble publicly and to openly air their views about the matter without fear of censure or violence. As an advocate for the rights and welfare of women and children, I consider gender identity ideology a men's sexual rights movement that is abusing the medical establishment and legal system to further its own agenda.
The facts:
There are men in women's prison cells (and consequent rapes).
Sexual and other assault victims are being compelled testify in language other than their own language (to wit: preferred pronouns) in court.
There are women who cannot obtain legal representation in malpractice cases against surgeon's experimenting on their bodies with disastrous results.
Regressive sex stereotypes have become the standard by which childhood is regulated, and the ordinary challenges of puberty have been pathologized.
Parents are at risk of losing custody of their children for attempting to protect them from the social contagion of gender identity ideology.
Citizens run the risk of losing employment for registering their dissent publicly, if they can, before they are banned from social media platforms. Women are subjected to violence in public fora for protesting in defense of women and children.
It's about time we legal professionals stand up to stop this nonsense.
Leslie Sudock, Esq.
Philadelphia