Law Equality Act: Should Gender Dysphoria (or Sexual Orientation) Constitute A Protected Class?

That list probably exists on the internet if you google it. It's definitely a fact that non-straight people account for a significant portion of the greatest contributors to mankind. You already listed arguably the most celebrated author and most celebrated artist of all time.

Steve Young's post-game reaction to Bill Belichick's Super Bowl LIII defensive scheme: "This was his Mona Lisa, his Sistine Chapel..."

<WellThere>

It's a tough comparison, Da Vinci was a polymath and almost certainly of higher overall intellect; he had a far greater interest in the natural world. However, I've always found Il Divino's art in particular more jaw dropping and captivating. There's a sort of irony that they're responsible for a lot of the most iconic Abrahamic-Christian themed artwork of all-time (The Last Supper, Pieta, David, Creation of Adam, Last Judgment).

This is fucking impossible, and sends chills down my spine.
Pope Julius II believed Michelangelo could do anything and ordered him to decorate the ceiling of the chapel. “But I’m not a painter,” Michelangelo protested, “I’m a sculptor. I’ve hardly done anything with a brush and you want me to paint 2000 square feet on a curved ceiling!”

The ceiling measures about 40 meters (131 feet) long by 13 meters (43 feet) wide. Although these numbers are rounded, they demonstrate the enormous scale of this nontraditional canvas. In fact, Michelangelo painted well over 5,000 square feet of frescoes.

It took Michelangelo a little over four years, from July of 1508 to October of 1512, to finish the paintings. Michelangelo had never painted frescoes before and was learning the craft as he worked. What's more, he chose to work in buon fresco, the most difficult method, and one normally reserved for true masters. He also had to learn some wickedly hard techniques in perspective, namely painting figures on curved surfaces that appear correct when viewed from nearly 60 feet below.

He gets, and deserves, credit for the entire project. The complete design was his. The sketches and cartoons for the frescoes were all of his hand, and he executed the vast bulk of the actual painting by himself.

There's tons. A lot of activists, scholars and historians have aggressively sought to reclaim our history which I kind of get on its own merit, but especially when people feel or claim that we're a degradation of society and culture simply by way of existence. That stings, it's unfair and more importantly just demonstrably false. Digging through the archives and crates isn't always pleasant though.

https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/clos...ched-off-purge-gays-government-100003760.html

Written by Peter Shinkle, a former reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, it tells the life story of the author’s great-uncle, a central character in the creation of Executive Order 10450.

A blue-blood liberal Republican from a prominent Boston family, a Harvard graduate and member of the elite Porcellian Club, a wealthy banker and U.S. Army general during World War II, Robert “Bobby” Cutler Jr. became a close adviser to President Eisenhower during his 1952 presidential campaign. He was then tapped by Ike to serve as White House special assistant for national security affairs, the forerunner to the position of national security adviser.

Cutler, who prided himself on never talking to the press, was a pivotal figure, helping to direct U.S. foreign policy during an era of tense global confrontation with the Soviet Union. And it was Cutler who oversaw the drafting of Executive Order 10450 — a role all the more remarkable because, as Shinkle reveals, Cutler was a gay man who secretly pursued a passionate, years-long relationship with a young naval intelligence officer on the National Security Council staff.

“Bobby served the nation’s strategic defense and national security interests brilliantly, while living in private agony as a closeted homosexual, deprived of the affections for which he longed,” writes Shinkle.

As advance word of Shinkle’s book has spread, it has already begun making waves among historians and activists who have been trying for years to resurrect the erased history of the U.S. government’s demonization of homosexuals, and to understand how it came about.

“It’s an incredible piece of research,” said Charles Francis, president of the Washington Mattachine Society, who has filed multiple freedom of information requests to uncover documents relating to the government’s past persecution of LGBT people.

“The Eisenhower executive order caused unspeakable damage to loyal LGBT Americans,” he said. “Tens of thousands were investigated and had their lives ruined. This is the texture of history. That you have a homosexual — known to himself as a homosexual — writing this order, it blew my mind.”
 
The only function of gender dysphorics is to get regular people to lie so that they can't defend, or even choose, truth elsewhere either. The narrative and its motives are as transparent as they are evil.
 
It can be claimed on a whim, so everyone can become 'protected class' and exploit this.
Good luck with this gender marxism nonsense playing oppression olympics till the society is destroyed entirely.
 
I actually do, but I'm concerned about the growing inequality gap and sustainability of it.
I am in America the land of Equal opportunity not equal outcome.

If you don't make it there is no one to blame but yourself.
 
That list probably exists on the internet if you google it. It's definitely a fact that non-straight people account for a significant portion of the greatest contributors to mankind. You already listed arguably the most celebrated author and most celebrated artist of all time.


So does it mean bright people wants to fuck a lot so they bone all genders?
 
Edit, also note, until I have more time to review this legislation and more I'm not for or against it, as I've already said ITT.
How should one not familiar with US law interpret "protected class"?
Or how about make everyone a protected class?

I'm pretty sure heterosexual is considered a sexual orientation (IDL). It's crazy how many people ITT seem to be in opposition to the Civil Rights Act altogether. Here is what this actually reads like should it come to be amended.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and U.S. labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, and discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system.

Where does the "special rights" or "special status" come into play? It protects straight, white, Christian males under the law as much as anyone. It's thought of and presented as an "LGBT rights" bill because most people... aren't LGBT. Do'h! You guys (below) are crazy lol. The part of the legislation I don't like, as I've stated repeatedly, is that it also redefines 'sex' in the federal US code to include gender identity itself and several articles lay out the potential problems that come with that.

To open ended. Doesn’t protect the rights of the rest of the people.

The civil Rights act was the exception to the rule.
All laws should apply to people equally. Nobody is special.
This is America, We are all EQUAL. No SPECIAL TREATMENT for anyone.
Nope. Simple.
There should not be any protected classes.
No special status for anyone.
I'm hesitant to add even more groups special rights that other groups don't have.
 
I'm pretty sure heterosexual is considered a sexual orientation (IDL). It's crazy how many people ITT seem to be in opposition to the Civil Rights Act altogether. Here is what this actually reads like should it come to be amended.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and U.S. labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, and discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system.

Where does the "special rights" or "special status" come into play? It protects straight, white, Christian males under the law as much as anyone. It's thought of and presented as an "LGBT rights" bill because most people... aren't LGBT. Do'h! You guys (below) are crazy lol. The part of the legislation I don't like, as I've stated repeatedly, is that it also redefines 'sex' in the federal US code to include gender identity itself and several articles lay out the potential problems that come with that.
Civil Rights = Equality

Not special treatment
 
No. Its a slippery slope towards a completely different society that is 100% unnecessary and being forced on us by the same powers democrats used to protest against.

They deserve to be free from abuse like everybody else. I'm for a new rule that says no treating people like crap because of who they are, essentially for no reason, when it is unrelated to job performance.
 
It should. It's clear that there is a sizable part of the population born with gender dysmorphia. I think it goes further than gender. Another portion have actual physical characteristics. It's just something certain people are born with that we fully don't understand.

They should be protected just like anyone else born with immutable traits. I do think we need to start making better distinctions with sex and gender however.
 
no it should not

we don't tell Anorexics/Bulemics to 'keep puking, you're fine!' or weird bodybuilders to inject all the snythol they want b/c it's good for them

So why do it here?
 
They deserve to be free from abuse like everybody else. I'm for a new rule that says no treating people like crap because of who they are, essentially for no reason, when it is unrelated to job performance.

Unrelated to the thread, but I hope you're able to get health insurance soon; that's no way to roll (the dice).
 
I'm pretty sure heterosexual is considered a sexual orientation (IDL). It's crazy how many people ITT seem to be in opposition to the Civil Rights Act altogether. Here is what this actually reads like should it come to be amended.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and U.S. labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, and discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system.

Where does the "special rights" or "special status" come into play? It protects straight, white, Christian males under the law as much as anyone. It's thought of and presented as an "LGBT rights" bill because most people... aren't LGBT. Do'h! You guys (below) are crazy lol. The part of the legislation I don't like, as I've stated repeatedly, is that it also redefines 'sex' in the federal US code to include gender identity itself and several articles lay out the potential problems that come with that.
I'm not sure why you quoted me on this, other than I just wasn't going to blindly endorse something I knew nothing about just because it sounded good. But if that's all there is to the change, fuck people who disagree.
 
I'm not sure why you quoted me on this, other than I just wasn't going to blindly endorse something I knew nothing about just because it sounded good. But if that's all there is to the change, fuck people who disagree.

The bolded is why. It expands public accommodations to include establishments that provide goods, services, or programs and prohibits "establishment" from being construed to be limited to a physical facility or place. Aside from redefining 'sex' to include "gender identity", these are the areas in particular people are not going to like:

√ Requires protections against discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity to include protections against discrimination based on: (1) an association with another person who is a member of such a protected class; or (2) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, that an individual is a member of such a protected class. It prohibits the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 from providing a claim, defense, or basis for challenging such protections.

√ Prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.
 
The bolded is why. It expands public accommodations to include establishments that provide goods, services, or programs and prohibits "establishment" from being construed to be limited to a physical facility or place. Aside from redefining 'sex' to include "gender identity", these are the areas in particular people are not going to like:

√ Requires protections against discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity to include protections against discrimination based on: (1) an association with another person who is a member of such a protected class; or (2) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, that an individual is a member of such a protected class. It prohibits the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 from providing a claim, defense, or basis for challenging such protections.

√ Prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.
So, in other words, it's to counter people like the religious cake guy. I'm not a legal expert so I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but it seems like the right thing to do to me. That last line could be problematic without further qualification, mind you.

On the other hand, you still haven't responded to my inquiry about your claim of "years of intellectually dishonest arguments that (biological) sex and gender are two separate things" (unless I missed that). I can't speak to the "years of intellectually dishonest arguments" part and I encourage you to quote examples, but there is certainly a scientific basis for "(biological) sex and gender are two separate things".
 
The bolded is why. It expands public accommodations to include establishments that provide goods, services, or programs and prohibits "establishment" from being construed to be limited to a physical facility or place. Aside from redefining 'sex' to include "gender identity", these are the areas in particular people are not going to like:

√ Requires protections against discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity to include protections against discrimination based on: (1) an association with another person who is a member of such a protected class; or (2) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, that an individual is a member of such a protected class. It prohibits the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 from providing a claim, defense, or basis for challenging such protections.

√ Prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.

That last paragraph is a problem.
 
On the other hand, you still haven't responded to my inquiry about your claim of "years of intellectually dishonest arguments that (biological) sex and gender are two separate things" (unless I missed that). I can't speak to the "years of intellectually dishonest arguments" part and I encourage you to quote examples, but there is certainly a scientific basis for "(biological) sex and gender are two separate things".

I was just referring to years of talking with and reading arguments from trans people. "We aren't denying biological sex or at war with our chromosomes, gender is something different". It's moot, was all for nothing and wouldn't make any damn difference if this legislation passes as presented: your gender identity would just as well be your biological sex in the eyes of federal law. It redefines sex to include gender identity. This is why it's getting opposition from women's rights groups.
 
I was just referring to years of talking with and reading arguments from trans people. "We aren't denying biological sex or at war with our chromosomes, gender is something different". It's moot, was all for nothing and wouldn't make any damn difference if this legislation passes as presented: your gender identity would just as well be your biological sex in the eyes of federal law. It redefines sex to include gender identity. This is why it's getting opposition from women's rights groups.
See, I think I may need to cut back on the pot; I still hadn't understood the thrust of your issue until now. Although I didn't get that meaning from your text, I'll fall back on what I said before, not a legal expert. If that's the case, then yeah, it's certainly an issue.
 
See, I think I may need to cut back on the pot; I still hadn't understood the thrust of your issue until now. Although I didn't get that meaning from your text, I'll fall back on what I said before, not a legal expert. If that's the case, then yeah, it's certainly an issue.

:rolleyes:

On another note, how they let the dude just breathe all over it like that? :confused: Jesus.

 
√ Prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.

And this is the too open part.

Pre op males do not belong in female facilities and it goes the same the other way.
 
Back
Top