" A Protected Class "

Activism, Civil Rights, Debate, Theory, and Research

" A Protected Class "

Postby CuteButLooksPregnant » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:37 am

“Transgender people have long been forced to live in silence, or to come out and face the threat of overwhelming discrimination,” [U.S. District Judge Marsha] Pechman wrote.

“The Court also rules that, because transgender people have long been subjected to systemic oppression and forced to live in silence, they are a protected class. "
( italics and underline mine )

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transgender-ban-trump-military_us_5ad1572ee4b0edca2cb9eea1

If this ruling holds up as it applies to the military, that implies that it could be applied to the business and academic worlds too, don't you think ?
"My family as begged me to shame not the name of Romeo, but thy male will commit suicide, and die. I will then take thy holy name of Juliet, and be baptized anew as a cute teen girl!"

-Juliet, from Romeo&Juliet, Ep6: Wondering Son anime
User avatar
CuteButLooksPregnant
Member
 
Posts: 3317
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:23 pm
Location: Cedar Point, Ohio, USA

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby REM1126 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:29 pm

Fantastic!!!!
User avatar
REM1126
Member
 
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:09 pm

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby MikiSJ » Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:07 pm

Let's hope that Betsy DeVoss reads this as some courts have held Title Nine protects transgender students.
When writing the next chapter in your life, start with a pencil and eraser - my first page as Miki is full of eraser marks. Doodling is allowed. I have started a new chapter but will still use a pencil.
User avatar
MikiSJ
Member
 
Posts: 5071
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:21 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby SophieCantDance » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:15 am

I dunno Miki, do you think that Betsy DeVoss can read at all?
Sophie <3
User avatar
SophieCantDance
Member
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:04 pm

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby MikiSJ » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:09 am

SophieCantDance wrote:I dunno Miki, do you think that Betsy DeVoss can read at all?

Ouch! But a good question none the less.
When writing the next chapter in your life, start with a pencil and eraser - my first page as Miki is full of eraser marks. Doodling is allowed. I have started a new chapter but will still use a pencil.
User avatar
MikiSJ
Member
 
Posts: 5071
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:21 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby Medli » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:43 pm

Bullshit. That kind of language and behavior is an embarrassment to our legal system.

There shouldn't be preferential treatment just because a couple people have said mean things in the past.
If you see this while scrolling, you have been visited by the Rebecca of good opinions. Logic and good taste will come to you, but only if you reply "Thanks Rebecca" to this post.
User avatar
Medli
Member
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:25 am

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby MikiSJ » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:01 pm

Medli wrote:Bullshit. That kind of language and behavior is an embarrassment to our legal system.

There shouldn't be preferential treatment just because a couple people have said mean things in the past.

Please splain, Lucy!
When writing the next chapter in your life, start with a pencil and eraser - my first page as Miki is full of eraser marks. Doodling is allowed. I have started a new chapter but will still use a pencil.
User avatar
MikiSJ
Member
 
Posts: 5071
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:21 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby kris » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:52 am

Medli wrote:Bullshit. That kind of language and behavior is an embarrassment to our legal system.

There shouldn't be preferential treatment just because a couple people have said mean things in the past.


It isn’t preferrential. In most cases it refers to a trait or characteristic against which discrimination is unfounded. So sex is not a valid basis for discrimination, and the protections in place for sex should include males, females, and intersex individuals. Some protections will be limited to narrower groups such as protections on the basis of disability. Why? Probably because discrimination on the basis of lack of disability isn’t so much a thing.

In trrms of people saying mean things, it isn’t really relevant. People are still free to say mean things, But i. a country like the United States of America, most people will have to work and secure goods and services made available to the public mot just for the pursuit of happiness, but for basic survival. So to that end, discrimination in employment, education, and securing goods and services available to the public cannot be barred on the basis of traits a person cannot choose not to have, or those which are a matter of fundamental rights such as religion.
kris
Member
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:31 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby Medli » Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:18 am

Discrimination on such basis has already been illegal.

"because transgender people have long been subjected to systemic oppression and forced to live in silence, they are a protected class. "

Let's just take this apart here one word at a time. "Because" This is suggesting it's due to a specific reason and not just a general thing. "long" suggests that the time span and severity and some bearing on this decision. "systematic oppression" is implying it's somehow ingrained into our society itself to "opress" trans people, which, I mean is a drastic overstatement and really sets the tone for what this is trying to convey. "forced to live in silence", which is a generalization and serves nothing but to be flavor to highlight how much emotional weight the judge is trying to place on this. Finally "protected class". Yeah there's already laws against discrimination, but trans people are extra special and we need to have extra strict laws to protect their feelings too.

It's saying something entirely redundant backed by loosely guised emotional rhetoric when it's only used to introduce backwards concepts that go against principles of equality by saying it's okay to do something to one group but not to another. This is why I take issue with the statement.
If you see this while scrolling, you have been visited by the Rebecca of good opinions. Logic and good taste will come to you, but only if you reply "Thanks Rebecca" to this post.
User avatar
Medli
Member
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:25 am

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby SophieCantDance » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:03 am

@Medli keep in mind that there are just so many instances of trans people being discriminated against, verbally, and physically abused, denied employment, denied access to medical care, and the perpetrator getting away with it specifically because transgender people in many principalities are not legally protected from these types of discrimination. Yes we should not need this, because people should just treat everyone equally, but the sad fact is that without these kind of specific protections discrimination will continue.

Also, the quoted line is not actually in the ruling (which I suggest you read in full), I suspect that it was part of the Judge's verbal ruling, but those words are not found in the written ruling.
Sophie <3
User avatar
SophieCantDance
Member
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:04 pm

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby kris » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:35 am

"long" suggests that the time span and severity and some bearing on this decision. "systematic oppression" is implying it's somehow ingrained into our society itself to "opress" trans people, which, I mean is a drastic overstatement and really sets the tone for what this is trying to convey.


This is in response to the President of the United States using his office in a discriminatory manner.

"forced to live in silence", which is a generalization and serves nothing but to be flavor to highlight how much emotional weight the judge is trying to place on this.


Transgender people serving in the military would be forced to choose between their service and their gender identity, so yes, under a service ban they are being silenced or else discriminated against.

Finally "protected class". Yeah there's already laws against discrimination,


That is what ‘protected class’ is referring to; however, what exists at the federal level, to my understanding, is an interpretation that gender identity is protected from discrimination under sex rather than explicit protection. That is what is being clarified in the statement, which likely needs to be clarified as the President and parts of his administration do not seem to agree with that interpretation.

but trans people are extra special and we need to have extra strict laws to protect their feelings too.


What laws?


It's saying something entirely redundant backed by loosely guised emotional rhetoric when it's only used to introduce backwards concepts that go against principles of equality by saying it's okay to do something to one group but not to another. This is why I take issue with the statement.


It is being used to stop a ban in military service which appears to be based on the idea that trans people are icky. The reasons offered by the PotUS for the ban don’t add up. So what does this statement specifically do for trans people that it does not do for cis?
kris
Member
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:31 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby Medli » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:36 pm

SophieCantDance wrote:@Medli keep in mind that there are just so many instances of trans people being discriminated against, verbally, and physically abused, denied employment, denied access to medical care, and the perpetrator getting away with it specifically because transgender people in many principalities are not legally protected from these types of discrimination. Yes we should not need this, because people should just treat everyone equally, but the sad fact is that without these kind of specific protections discrimination will continue.

Also, the quoted line is not actually in the ruling (which I suggest you read in full), I suspect that it was part of the Judge's verbal ruling, but those words are not found in the written ruling.


It's already so easy to get sued for discrimination nowadays. For those situations I'd assume it was either uncontested by the victims, incompetence on part of lawyers, or the claims were inaccurate. Though in the case of insults or hate speech towards trans people, that shouldn't be something one can get in trouble for anyway.

Then perhaps the written ruling is better, but I'm not too interested in getting into the whole situation and debating that just commented to say I take issue with the phrasing from the quote.
If you see this while scrolling, you have been visited by the Rebecca of good opinions. Logic and good taste will come to you, but only if you reply "Thanks Rebecca" to this post.
User avatar
Medli
Member
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:25 am

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby Medli » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:52 pm

kris wrote:
"long" suggests that the time span and severity and some bearing on this decision. "systematic oppression" is implying it's somehow ingrained into our society itself to "opress" trans people, which, I mean is a drastic overstatement and really sets the tone for what this is trying to convey.


This is in response to the President of the United States using his office in a discriminatory manner.

"forced to live in silence", which is a generalization and serves nothing but to be flavor to highlight how much emotional weight the judge is trying to place on this.


Transgender people serving in the military would be forced to choose between their service and their gender identity, so yes, under a service ban they are being silenced or else discriminated against.

Finally "protected class". Yeah there's already laws against discrimination,


That is what ‘protected class’ is referring to; however, what exists at the federal level, to my understanding, is an interpretation that gender identity is protected from discrimination under sex rather than explicit protection. That is what is being clarified in the statement, which likely needs to be clarified as the President and parts of his administration do not seem to agree with that interpretation.

but trans people are extra special and we need to have extra strict laws to protect their feelings too.


What laws?


It's saying something entirely redundant backed by loosely guised emotional rhetoric when it's only used to introduce backwards concepts that go against principles of equality by saying it's okay to do something to one group but not to another. This is why I take issue with the statement.


It is being used to stop a ban in military service which appears to be based on the idea that trans people are icky. The reasons offered by the PotUS for the ban don’t add up. So what does this statement specifically do for trans people that it does not do for cis?


If that is the case, then the judge was incorrect to say "have long since been systematically oppressed".

The tense is inconsistent here. You're saying that with Trumps ruling they would have to when the judge is saying they long since have. So that is not what they are referring to in that statement.

If that is the case, then the ruling should be about clarifying how laws apply to gender identity rather than creating a "protected class".

It depends on how this "protected class" is enforced.

I don't believe Trump's statement on the matter was than trans people are "icky", rather that he doesn't want trans people to enlist in the military as a way to get the government to pay for transitioning.
Again, it's difficult to tell with the ambiguity of the term, but I don't believe "cis" are considered to be "protected" in a special regard.
If you see this while scrolling, you have been visited by the Rebecca of good opinions. Logic and good taste will come to you, but only if you reply "Thanks Rebecca" to this post.
User avatar
Medli
Member
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:25 am

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby kris » Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:04 pm

Medli wrote:The tense is inconsistent here. You're saying that with Trumps ruling they would have to when the judge is saying they long since have. So that is not what they are referring to in that statement.


I am not saying this is the only instance of discriminatory policy; I am saying that particular case is an example of systemic discrimination. This case in itself is an example of long-standing discrimination as openly trans* people have been barred from service in the armed forces for a rather long time.

If that is the case, then the ruling should be about clarifying how laws apply to gender identity rather than creating a "protected class".


That is essentially what is being done here.

It depends on how this "protected class" is enforced.


In this particular case, it means that the threshold for barring individuals from service on the basis of gender identity is higher than the PotUS has met. Until that threshold is met, the previous injunction against the ban remains in place. It's not ambiguous.

I don't believe Trump's statement on the matter was than trans people are "icky", rather that he doesn't want trans people to enlist in the military as a way to get the government to pay for transitioning.


You can believe what you like, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. According to the ruling, the ban applies to anyone with a history of a gender dysphoria diagnosis, yet not all who are diagnosed transition. Second, the ban applies to those who have transitioned, so in that case the medical expenses would be minimal. Third, even, in the cases where a person may desire to transition while in active service, assessments of the cost have already been given from more than one source confirming the cost -- in the context of annual military health care expenditures -- would be trivial.

Again, it's difficult to tell with the ambiguity of the term, but I don't believe "cis" are considered to be "protected" in a special regard.


Cis people aren't being discriminated against on the basis of gender identity, and they are currently protected on the basis of sex. This isn't a 'special' right.

The ambiguity you sense seems to be coming from two things. First, you're treating the term 'protected class' like it is generic language rather than a term used in law with a more established meaning. Second, you're ignoring that the term applies in a greater context of court decisions and legal philosophy and practice. Correct me if I'm wrong. It feels very much like you are arguing beside the point and ultimately your disagreement is with something which is not particularly... real.
kris
Member
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:31 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby MikiSJ » Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:47 am

A little research goes a long ways:
A protected group or protected class is a group of people qualified for special protection by a law, policy, or similar authority. In the United States, the term is frequently used in connection with employees and employment.

Where discrimination on the basis of protected group status is concerned, a single act of discrimination may be based on membership in more than one protected group. For example, discrimination based on antisemitism may relate to religion, national origin, or both; discrimination against a pregnant woman might be based on sex, marital status, or both.[1]

U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin or religion. Many state laws also give certain protected groups special protection against harassment and discrimination, as do many employer policies. Although it is not required by federal law, employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation.[1] The following characteristics are "protected" by United States federal anti-discrimination law:

Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interprets 'sex' to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity[2]
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Individual states can and do create other classes for protection under state law.

U.S. Presidents have also issued executive orders which prohibit consideration of particular attributes in employment decisions of the United States government and its contractors. These have included Executive Order 11246 (1965), Executive Order 11478 (1969), Executive Order 13087 (1998), Executive Order 13279 (2003), and Executive Order 13672 (2014).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

Executive Order 13672 is of particular interest to us as it prohibited discrimination in the civilian federal workforce on the basis of gender identity and in hiring by federal contractors on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity.

I think Trump goes to sleep each night dreaming of overturning this EO. Probably needs to have the wet spot cleaned up in the morning by his black housekeepers.
When writing the next chapter in your life, start with a pencil and eraser - my first page as Miki is full of eraser marks. Doodling is allowed. I have started a new chapter but will still use a pencil.
User avatar
MikiSJ
Member
 
Posts: 5071
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:21 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby REM1126 » Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:40 am

I don't honestly think Trump cares one way or the other.

Throughout most of his life, and even on the campaign trail Trump was much more accepting of transgender people than any President before him when initially elected. But, Obama's views "evolved" while he was in office (he had not initially supported gay marriage). And, Hillary's views changed over time as well. In the election with Trump, she was relatively MORE LGBTQ friendly, probably largely because she is a Democrat and that is their niche.

Now PENCE hates us. And, the core of Trumps supporters don't approve. And, when he wants to buy some favor from them, he does something like what he did with the military recently (banning TG people from the military). I don't think that is an idea that he creams his shorts to at night though. It is political pandering to the base, because most LGBTQ people have made it clear they hate him. There are no points to be won by him there. no matter what he does, people like Miki will hate him.
User avatar
REM1126
Member
 
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:09 pm

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby Medli » Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:14 am

So reading over all of this, I'm getting... Trump banned trangenders from the military which they weren't allowed to serve in for a long time before but thankfully a judge issued an order that prevents discrimination on gender identity which was already issued in 2014. literally what. This, actually doesn't make any sense.

Er, I'll just reply to what I can before that gets sorted out

"According to the ruling, the ban applies to anyone with a history of a gender dysphoria diagnosis, yet not all who are diagnosed transition" And how can one know who will and won't?

" Second, the ban applies to those who have transitioned, so in that case the medical expenses would be minimal" But it's still a cost nonetheless and a cost that's limited to that group of people. If the phrasing was changed to something like excluding people with"untreated gender dysphonia" then that would be a lot harder to screen for and doesn't necessarily fix the problem as then it could be argued that if they discover it, then the military would be obligated to treat it.

" Third, even, in the cases where a person may desire to transition while in active service, assessments of the cost have already been given from more than one source confirming the cost -- in the context of annual military health care expenditures -- would be trivial." Well assuming even that is true, it's also to discourage the notion of someone joining the military for the intent of it covering their transition.

I'll give you the first one in that I had made wrong assumptions about the term. Though with the seemingly contradictory statements made prior, there's still certainly ambiguity.
I'm not sure what you're implying with the second statement.
My issue was with the judges language which I still have a few objections to, but other things have been brought up which I find disagreeable as well.
If you see this while scrolling, you have been visited by the Rebecca of good opinions. Logic and good taste will come to you, but only if you reply "Thanks Rebecca" to this post.
User avatar
Medli
Member
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:25 am

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby PentacleGoddess » Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:12 am

Medli, I guess I'm confused as to why you are so hostile towards something granting legal protections to a marginalized class that unarguably faces discrimination, regardless of whether it's all that particularly redundant or not?

If we have to double and triple stack the legal notion of not being discriminated against in matters beyond the realm of hate speech, so be it.
"I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hari kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61!"
User avatar
PentacleGoddess
Board Moderator
 
Posts: 6218
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:15 am

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby kris » Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:30 pm

So reading over all of this, I'm getting... Trump banned trangenders from the military which they weren't allowed to serve in for a long time before but thankfully a judge issued an order that prevents discrimination on gender identity which was already issued in 2014. literally what. This, actually doesn't make any sense.


That really doesn’t make sense, but it also has little to do with what others have written.

Transgender people have long faced discrimination in many facets of American life. Germane to this case, that discrimination has long been practiced in the armed forces.

Shortly before the end of Obama’s second term, military policy barring transgender service people was reversed.

Shortly after Trump taking office, the President attempted to reimplement the ban on transgender service. This resulted in a suit against the government, which to my understanding has not yet been resolved.

The Trump administration wanted to enforce the ban while that court case was still pending. A judge determined an injunction on the ban was prudent until such time as the matter has been settled. Trump pressed the matter again because persistent dubfuckery does, at times, get the job done. A judge upheld the injuction citing, at least in part, that transgender people are and need to be considered a protected class in this matter.

The idea that we are a protected class is not something pulled out of thin air. An executive order from the Obama Administration in 2014 indicate we are, but that order pertained to the federal civillian work force. So while the judge was not merely making shit up or anything, the matter did need to be clarified in this case, along with the judge’s reasoning. When it comes to these matters, it often takes more than one ruling or decision to determine the limits of the law and legal interpretations across multiple contexts. It’s not a one and done thing. For this injunction, the judge needs to look at the specifics of this case, and in their decision needs to draw on broader legal practice and philosophy. Something you aren’t doing, which is probably why it makes such little sense to you.
kris
Member
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:31 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby REM1126 » Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:59 pm

Good answer Kris. :thumb:

I would also point out that the Courts have traditionally allowed the military to exclude people which the federal government could not exclude from employment in the civilian work force. Notably, physically disabled people often are not allowed to join the military (unless they have some special skill in high demand).

The IRS could not refuse to hire an accountant who is confined to a wheel chair, but the Marines can certainly refuse to take her/him as an enlisted man and probably as an officer (unless they REALLY need a skill s/he has). The Department of Education cannot refuse to hire a blind person who is qualified and capable of performing the task of the advertised join, but the Air Force would not be similarly compelled to accept the person.

Sex based discrimination has been institutionalized in the military since its beginning. Women have been denied certain roles. That is changing, but I am not sure it has completely been opened up for women.

On the other hand, I don't think the military can discriminate on the basis of national origin, religion or race. If they CAN, they presently do not. So, it seems there needs to be a perceived operational advantage to the discrimination. If being transgender somehow reduces combat readiness, it might be allowed. If it is no more a factor in readiness than race or religion, then it probably won't be allowed.
User avatar
REM1126
Member
 
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:09 pm

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby MikiSJ » Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:26 pm

History has always created 'Protected Classes' some for the good and some, such as the 3/5ths compromise stated in our Constitution, to our collective shame.

Blacks were allowed to serve in the Union Army with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation - although they were still a 'Protected Class'. (It should be required viewing to watch the movie 'Glory')

Blacks were allowed to serve in all our armed services up through World War II, but not in same capacities as white soldiers, Marine, and sailors - still a 'Protected Class'.

Truman, under pressure from many in the civil rights movement, and in his cabinet and administration and from the Congress, issued Executive Order 9981, on July 26, 1948, a portion extracted below:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the Armed Services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/9981.htm and https://www.trumanlibrary.org/photos/9981p2a.gif

A very important statement, but left in place the 'Protected Class' of those previously excluded individuals who were denied equal service in our Armed Forces.

To say that the creation of 'Protect Classes' is folly and without need, must, MUST go back and review the history of the United States - and in particular, the need to create 'Protected Classes', of any sort. Protected Class have been with us since the signing of the Constitution and will remain with us as long as it is required that we protect certain classes of Citizens.

Get over it.
When writing the next chapter in your life, start with a pencil and eraser - my first page as Miki is full of eraser marks. Doodling is allowed. I have started a new chapter but will still use a pencil.
User avatar
MikiSJ
Member
 
Posts: 5071
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:21 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby Amy Farrah Fowler » Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:20 pm

Unfortunately, District Court decisions do not set binding precedents.
User avatar
Amy Farrah Fowler
Member
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:26 pm
Location: Cygnet XIV

Re: " A Protected Class "

Postby Demon » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:29 am

Medli wrote:Bullshit. That kind of language and behavior is an embarrassment to our legal system.

There shouldn't be preferential treatment just because a couple people have said mean things in the past.

Another treasonous statement from medii42, no surprise there. She loves being a traitor and generally trying to sabotage any attempts a progress, all under the guise of "equality". Honestly she is an embarrassment.

If somebody tries to make a trans religion, to try and organize transpeople into one united fellowship, theyll somehow find ways to pick it apart and claim its an offense to unity with the cis, that we shouldn't strengthen ourselves or anything, just roll over to the cis. Historically religions strethengened and gave power to small outcast groups like Jew's or Christians and reduced their infighting.
But medi42 is the equivalent of a native American shaming native Americans for building casinos. It's like, I want to build a casino. Stop fucking up the friggin casino I'm trying to build. And I want trans people to stop infighting each other. So quit it with your pathetic Judas Iscariot cis lalaland "I for one obey my new cis overlords" crap and trying sabotage everything.
my life is mostly pain
User avatar
Demon
Member
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:26 am


Return to Politics, Philosophy, and Science

coiae

Consonance of Identity and Expression


© 2000 - 2016 The Ultimate Paradigm