Skip

Justice and identity
July 1, 2014 7:36 AM   Subscribe


 
Sadly, for this to be truly effective, Congress needs to add homosexuality and gender identity to the list of protected classes under title VII. Macy is a good case, but I fear it will be overturned. In fact, I find it likely.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:03 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]


That's a shame, Ironmouth. Good to be reminded that pressure on Congresscritters is still very important; everyone reading this should write their Senators and Reps today. But I'm glad to see that Obama seems very keen on making one part of his legacy the advancement of lgtb rights.

As an aside, I think it's worth noting that the "year-long study" by the Equal Rights Center in the 2nd paragraph tested only 8 federal contractors, 7 of which were specifically chosen "because their own internal employment policies did not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity," and the eighth, ExxonMobil, was chosen "because shareholders have repeatedly voted down a resolution to protect LGBT workers from discrimination." The small, unscientific sample is made clear in ERC's announcement, but not in the HuffPo link. I'm not implying discrimination against lgtb folks by federal contractors isn't a problem, just that this particular study, while demonstrating that problem, doesn't really have much to say about its scope among federal contractors.
posted by mediareport at 8:10 AM on July 1


Sadly, for this to be truly effective, Congress needs to add homosexuality and gender identity to the list of protected classes under title VII.

Time for our regular reminder that a majority of voters in every single Congressional district in the country support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the current (trans-inclusive) version of which passed with a bipartisan filibuster-proof majority (64-32) in the Senate last year.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:33 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]


And yet it's still not passed because some people are worried about the exceptions for religious services not going far enough.
posted by Talez at 8:47 AM on July 1


I think it's worth noting that the "year-long study" by the Equal Rights Center in the 2nd paragraph tested only 8 federal contractors, 7 of which were specifically chosen "because their own internal employment policies did not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity," and the eighth, ExxonMobil, was chosen "because shareholders have repeatedly voted down a resolution to protect LGBT workers from discrimination." The small, unscientific sample is made clear in ERC's announcement, but not in the HuffPo link. I'm not implying discrimination against lgtb folks by federal contractors isn't a problem, just that this particular study, while demonstrating that problem, doesn't really have much to say about its scope among federal contractors.

Perhaps not, but it says something about its scope among federal contractors who do not already have comparable protections in place. And surely that's the important question, right? I mean, there's no point in testing how effectively seatbelts save lives among people who walk to work, is there?
posted by yoink at 8:55 AM on July 1


I can't help but speculate that this EO will be rescinded once the next phase of "two terms for you, two terms for me" detente between Republicans and Democrats begins.
posted by rhizome at 9:12 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]


I can't help but speculate that this EO will be rescinded once the next phase of "two terms for you, two terms for me" detente between Republicans and Democrats begins.

Ha ha, yeah. Like, remember how after Clinton had his two terms (which the Republics were SO happy about) the Democrats all just gladly passed the presidency on to George W. Bush without the least drama or controversy (because it was their turn you see!). And remember how McCain just quietly ceded the fight to Obama in 2008, without the least bitterness or rancor?
posted by yoink at 9:45 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]


Maybe I'm just in a particularly good mood today, but could we maybe not turn what should be happy and positive news for trans folk into a D vs R pissing match?

Obama did a Good Thing. Can we focus on that for a bit please?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:57 AM on July 1 [6 favorites]


Also that should probably have read 'trans and any non-binary-gender-conforming folks,' sorry.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:59 AM on July 1


woo! one more pebble on the corpse of our past
posted by rebent at 10:20 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]


feckless fecal fear mongering: "Maybe I'm just in a particularly good mood today, but could we maybe not turn what should be happy and positive news for trans folk into a D vs R pissing match?"

Given that this regulation exists solely at the whim of the Executive Branch, and one of those two parties campaigns relentlessly against securing human rights for individuals covered by this positive development, it's a pretty important detail.
posted by schmod at 10:27 AM on July 1


I'm ever so slightly aware of the difference between D and R on a whole variety of issues, especially as they regard QUILTBAG folks.

What I'm saying is, could we maybe celebrate a good thing without turning into yet another argument about Ds and Rs?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:30 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]


What I'm saying is, could we maybe celebrate a good thing without turning into yet another argument about Ds and Rs?

I get what you're saying but this really is a fundamentally political issue, and one that demonstrably does break down along party lines. It's not a derail or wrong to discuss the political dimension of this here. There's reason to celebrate but there's also good reason to be concerned that the Republicans will fight this or try to undo it should a Republican be elected President.

It's not a "pissing match". There are real implications to consider based on party with this issue. If you don't want to discuss those, you don't have to, but don't try to stop others from doing so.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:39 PM on July 1


The positive thing here is that the current U.S. President in recognizing one's gender identity as a thing worthy of equal protection under the law. Has that ever happened before?
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:48 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]


[Comment deleted. If this is not the conversation you want to be participating in, there's a limit to how much you can try to steer it. Move on, please. Thanks. ]
posted by restless_nomad at 1:03 PM on July 1


Joey Michaels, Obama is the first president to use the word "transgender" in a speech, let alone recognize that we deserve to be equal. Joe Biden, because he's Joe Biden, has said that trans discimination is "the civil rights issue of our time,” and that felt pretty cool too!
posted by Corinth at 1:22 PM on July 1 [7 favorites]


Every time I think about this I smile.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:36 PM on July 1


Good for him.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:23 AM on July 2








« Older Canadianisms   |   The Other Net Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post