General civil blanket rights protections don’t work. We already have laws against sex discrimination. By any objective measure, discriminating against trans people is sex discrimination. It is literally sex discrimination to ban hormone treatments for minors. Imagine a doctor that will prescribe a cis girl E is she has low E levels, but she won’t prescribe a trans girl E because of her perceived or actual sex. That is literally sex discrimination. Yet the courts are letting laws against trans medical care stand.
What is needed is explicit legal protections for gender identity and gender expression. These laws protect both cis and trans people from being discriminated against based on these factors. But you can’t just rely on generic sex-discrimination provisions, as conservative courts have found absurd interpretations of the law to find that plain sex discrimination is anything but. You need to give the slimy bastards zero wiggle room.
Or for another example:
Don’t make the rule that “you can’t deny someone food stamps due to their trans identity”; say people can’t be denied food stamps.
This statement is nonsensical. What do you mean, “people can’t be denied food stamps.” Of course people can be denied food stamps! Bill Gates doesn’t need to qualify for food stamps. When you want to ban a form of discrimination, you have to specifically define what form of discrimination is banned. You cannot just pass a blanket law that says, “don’t discriminate against anyone for any reason,” as there are countless valid reasons to discriminate against people. It’s just not valid to discriminate against people based on innate traits. If I’m a restaurant owner, it’s perfectly fine to throw someone out if they’re rude or a belligerent asshole. I’m discriminating against assholes.
You just can’t rely on vague legal language, as courts will always find a way to rule that marginalized groups for some reason don’t qualify under the generic protections. This is why we had to pass laws specifically banning race, gender, and religious discrimination. More generic protections had already failed. After all, the highest law of the land, the Constitution, already has the Equal Protection Clause, and minority groups have found its protection to be incredibly weak.
“[Nor shall any State] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
According to the plain text of the Constitution, the Civil Rights, the Women’s Rights, and the Queer Rights movements should have been completely unnecessary. After all, Jim Crow laws plainly violated this provision. Yet because the language was weak and nonspecific, it was easy for courts to find that black people could be denied the right to vote.
As far as appealing to the manosphere? You’re trying to appeal to a carnival of liars and con men. The objective reality of your actions has little bearing on who they choose to target for their five minutes of hate.
General civil blanket rights protections don’t work. We already have laws against sex discrimination. By any objective measure, discriminating against trans people is sex discrimination. It is literally sex discrimination to ban hormone treatments for minors. Imagine a doctor that will prescribe a cis girl E is she has low E levels, but she won’t prescribe a trans girl E because of her perceived or actual sex. That is literally sex discrimination. Yet the courts are letting laws against trans medical care stand.
What is needed is explicit legal protections for gender identity and gender expression. These laws protect both cis and trans people from being discriminated against based on these factors. But you can’t just rely on generic sex-discrimination provisions, as conservative courts have found absurd interpretations of the law to find that plain sex discrimination is anything but. You need to give the slimy bastards zero wiggle room.
Or for another example:
This statement is nonsensical. What do you mean, “people can’t be denied food stamps.” Of course people can be denied food stamps! Bill Gates doesn’t need to qualify for food stamps. When you want to ban a form of discrimination, you have to specifically define what form of discrimination is banned. You cannot just pass a blanket law that says, “don’t discriminate against anyone for any reason,” as there are countless valid reasons to discriminate against people. It’s just not valid to discriminate against people based on innate traits. If I’m a restaurant owner, it’s perfectly fine to throw someone out if they’re rude or a belligerent asshole. I’m discriminating against assholes.
You just can’t rely on vague legal language, as courts will always find a way to rule that marginalized groups for some reason don’t qualify under the generic protections. This is why we had to pass laws specifically banning race, gender, and religious discrimination. More generic protections had already failed. After all, the highest law of the land, the Constitution, already has the Equal Protection Clause, and minority groups have found its protection to be incredibly weak.
According to the plain text of the Constitution, the Civil Rights, the Women’s Rights, and the Queer Rights movements should have been completely unnecessary. After all, Jim Crow laws plainly violated this provision. Yet because the language was weak and nonspecific, it was easy for courts to find that black people could be denied the right to vote.
As far as appealing to the manosphere? You’re trying to appeal to a carnival of liars and con men. The objective reality of your actions has little bearing on who they choose to target for their five minutes of hate.