Important to think through what it means for a law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex AND gender identity. Understandable that some think “that’s fine, sex isn’t erased.” Lets lawmakers off the hook (“we’re expanding rights not taking any away”). It’s bait & switch.
Generally, “don’t discriminate” means “treat someone w/ the characteristic same as someone w/o it.” For some characteristics, “treating the same” doesn’t promote real equality due to inherent disadvantages based on the characteristic. Women lose out if law is entirely sex-blind.
So most sex discrim laws expressly have exceptions to the general “don’t discriminate” rule, allowing women & men to be treated differently (eg, sex-separated facilities). Analogous, really, to non-discrim based on disability (to have equal opportunity, need accommodations).
The law hasn’t developed w/ solid analysis of (given a goal of sex equality) what conditions require “same treatment” vs what requires “separate treatment”. Genderism comes along & we’re now forced to justify women-only spaces/services on two fronts: 1) men get in b/c equal=same;
2) Men get in b/c hey, the space isn’t now mixed-sex it’s actually still a women-only space just now inclusive of “all types of women” (even the male ones). Legally we are back on our heels b/c law has always favored equal=same, & law hasn’t ever had to define women before.
Any time sex is NOT relevant, GI isn’t relevant either. But any time sex is relevant, saying GI is equally relevant unavoidably makes sex irrelevant. The only way to keep sex relevant when it needs to be & also enshrine GI, would be to classify GI as a protected religious belief.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
