What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Status
Not open for further replies.
LynahFan said:
I genuinely do not understand. The Act includes ~20 statements along the lines of "It shall be unlawful to discriminate in X activity on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." This is clearly not talking about sex acts/practices ("What? I have to hire that guy even though he was having sex during the interview?") - these categories are all about personal *identity*. You can't discriminate against someone on the basis of their racial identity, their religious identity, or, logically, their sexual identity. I don't know how you could possibly argue that sexual orientation is not part of someone's sexual identity, i.e. who they are sexually.
Click to expand...

Because 'sex' in this context has been synonymous with gender since it was enacted. You're right that it has nothing to do with the bedroom activities. That's kinda my point.

Someone says: "I identify as a pansexual womyn" - I would say it explicitly protects on the basis of being a womyn. I don't necessarily think it protects on the basis of being pansexual.

The Court may disagree and say it does, and I'd be fine with that since it's the morally correct outcome. I'd rather the Feds make it moot by just adding sexual orientation to the statute.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

unofan said:
The Court may disagree and say it does, and I'd be fine with that since it's the morally correct outcome. I'd rather the Feds make it moot by just adding sexual orientation to the statute.
Click to expand...

Hopefully that happens 18 seconds after we take Congress.
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

unofan said:
I don't think it does, which is why I think the case involving transgendered people is actually easier to win.

I struggle with defining sex in the gender sense as inherently encompassing sexual orientation though. In my mind, one's gender is a different concept from who one wants to fark.
Click to expand...

pssst... "transgendered" not a word.
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Either way, it's fun to pontificate what will happen, but please understand my community does not have an easy feeling about this decision. We are fearing the worst.

Transgender people trusting any part of the government to get it right? HA. Right. I'll sing the praises of kale before that happens.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

And if it goes the way I expect it will (my friends and I aren't expecting sunshine, rainbows, and kittens when this decision is handed down), listen first. All I ask.
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Graham on potential Supreme Court vacancy: "This would be a different circumstance" than Merrick Garland <a href="https://t.co/mXlHp8SeGy">https://t.co/mXlHp8SeGy</a> <a href="https://t.co/kIa8VKZ2I8">pic.twitter.com/kIa8VKZ2I8</a></p>— The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1261790796522622995?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 16, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

I guess it depends on whether Roberts/Gorsuch thinks that advances the Plute agenda. TBH, I can't see a way it does. We may win this one 6-3. Obviously the Handmaid Three will go balls deep for Gilead.
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

I don't know. It's a **** surprise the Trump admin hasn't tried to go after gay marriage.

And I'm going to tell you this in the most respectful way I can (since the other thread didn't go so well): I think it's easy for cisgender, heterosexual individuals to say the court won't F my community without lube. For the the most part, cisgender heterosexuals won't be affected by this at all. It's easy for cishets to sit there in their safe space and say "oh, the court won't go that way." It especially pains me to see some of my so-called friends not speaking out against this. Ever since Trump and Pence came into office, one of their goals has been to inflict as much damage on our community as possible. Speaking out on social media does me absolutely no good, since the same people like and heart react my posts every time. We have our events like Day of Visibility and Day of Remembrance, but there's not been a trans/LGBT specific rally or event held in Michigan since March of last year. And this year, all the Pride events went virtual, were postponed, or were cancelled.

And one thing is I've been on HRT over 2 years. I'm a Mama Bear to younger trans women and to those my age who just came out. My "kids" are looking to me for advice and leadership in a country that hates them and wants to do them harm. My heart breaks. By the time I croak, hopefully many years from now, we still may not have full trans rights, so my goal is to pass the torch to the kids and leave this Earth thinking the kids are alright.
 
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Dump et al will go after it if they think it will gin people up. I would not be the least surprised if they make a run at it this fall. Look for bathroom bills and that sort of derp.

But the Court is about keeping the GOP in power to keep the Plutes' wealth growing and keep inequality growing, thus reducing most people to utter dependence on the largess of the rich. Neo-feudalism. And the way they do that is destroying the Voting Rights Act and approving vote suppression.

Roberts has calculated he can recover some dignity for the Court by ruling against the Nazis on gender issues and health care. But with the lower federal courts dominated by Nazi appointees maybe that's gonna change now.

tl; dr: fundies hate you and want you dead. Plutes don't care about you and want to use you as a wedge. Copy paste for women and POC.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top