SCOTUS rules LGBTQ's entitled to Title VII protection

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
Wouldn't this actually work against transfolk on insurance coverage? I mean, if cis women and trans women need to be supplied the same coverage, and you don't cover breast implants for cis women...
Generally speaking, trans women who transition don't get implants. Hormone therapy can actually stimulate the growth of breasts, though the process takes a while and leaves the chest feeling rather tender the whole time. The elements of a person's transition are specifically tailored to the needs of the patient. For example, if they have a complexion and hair color that blend more than they contrast, then laser hair removal would be a waste of time and money for removing facial hair because there are other less invasive methods. Someone with fair skin and dark hair however would have the option of laser hair removal because the roots of dark hair create a shadow under fair skin, and removing that shadow goes a surprisingly long way to easing dysmorphia. There are some trans individuals on social media who have documented their transitions, which takes a certain courage, and it really helps demystify the process.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
So will this have any impact on Trump's BS military bans? What about the GOP's restricting LGBTQ from adopting ? Health Insurance coverage? This ruling hopefully should give people a precedent in other areas as well since they are now FINALLY officially including them.
None whatsoever. Follow the logic of the court here and apply it to the policy there. The logic of the court is breaking an issue down to the sex of the individuals and asking if they wouldn't have been discriminated against but for the sex of that individual. If you fire a man for dating a man, but wouldn't fire a woman for dating a man, you wouldn't have fired him but for his sex. The restrictions on transgender individuals in the military is a restriction on those who are undergoing or have undergone medical or psychological treatment, something the military has many, many restrictions on in other scenarios. If the military bars a man undergoing long-term hormone therapy and would also bar a woman undergoing the same hormone therapy, there is no "but-for" discrimination based on sex.

There's something in here both the celebrating left and complaining right are misunderstanding. This ruling doesn't really extend Title VII protections to LGBTQ issues. What it does is reason the protections existing for sex and applies them to situations of sexuality and gender. If you fire a man for kissing a man but wouldn't fire a woman for kissing a man, the only material difference is the individual's sex, hence it is sex discrimination. This is a relatively clean answer in terms of sexuality, it's much less clean in terms of gender. In order to reach the conclusion here for transgender issue, you have to apply the same logic. If you would fire a man who presents as a woman but not a woman who presents as a woman, the only difference is sex, therefore it's sex discrimination. You might have just noticed an ideological conflict here: A transgender woman who is fired where a biological woman would not be is now protected not by virtue of being a transgender woman, but by virtue of being a biological man.

There will almost certainly come a time where people will try and invoke transgender protections only to find that not only do those protections not exist, but that Supreme Court precedent on the subject is reasoned only by specifically biological sex, and only applies cleanly in situations of transition from one gender to the other in the binary. Attempt to apply SCOTUS' rationale to gender fluidity, you'll find the gray area real fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

lil devils x

šŸMore Lego Goats Please!šŸ
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
šŸUSAšŸ
Gender
ā™€
Wouldn't this actually work against transfolk on insurance coverage? I mean, if cis women and trans women need to be supplied the same coverage, and you don't cover breast implants for cis women...
Health Insurance not covering cosmetic surgeries is expected, what isn't expected is Health insurance companies refusing to cover general health issues for Transgendered paitents DUE to the patient being transgender and claiming that the health condition was a result of hormone therapy, surgery ect. as they have in the past. Even for Cisgendered women who had cosmetic surgery, often insurers would refuse to cover necessary medical intervention due to complications from that surgery, though Cisgendered men and women had the option to purchase " complications Insurance" this was not often made available to Transgendered patients. Often though patients would have to worry that their private health insurance would not cover non related medical issues that arise afterwards claiming they were listed under possible " complications" even if they were not related.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
The restrictions on transgender individuals in the military is a restriction on those who are undergoing or have undergone medical or psychological treatment, something the military has many, many restrictions on in other scenarios.
Is it? The Presidential Memorandum just says "openly transgender individuals", and doesn't limit it to those who're undergoing or have undergone medical treatment.

EDIT: Oh, this is a particularly stupid section;

Presidential Memorandum said:
"In my judgment, the previous Administration failed to identify a sufficient basis to conclude that terminating the Departmentsā€™ longstanding policy and practice would not hinder military effectiveness and lethality, disrupt unit cohesion, or tax military resources

[...]

to return to the longstanding policy and practice on military service by transgender individuals that was in place prior to June 2016 until such time as a sufficient basis exists upon which to conclude that terminating that policy and practice would not have the negative effects discussed above.
So... he's saying that we'll need to prove a negative before he reconsiders? This is facile.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,632
2,849
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
None whatsoever. Follow the logic of the court here and apply it to the policy there. The logic of the court is breaking an issue down to the sex of the individuals and asking if they wouldn't have been discriminated against but for the sex of that individual. If you fire a man for dating a man, but wouldn't fire a woman for dating a man, you wouldn't have fired him but for his sex. The restrictions on transgender individuals in the military is a restriction on those who are undergoing or have undergone medical or psychological treatment, something the military has many, many restrictions on in other scenarios. If the military bars a man undergoing long-term hormone therapy and would also bar a woman undergoing the same hormone therapy, there is no "but-for" discrimination based on sex.

There's something in here both the celebrating left and complaining right are misunderstanding. This ruling doesn't really extend Title VII protections to LGBTQ issues. What it does is reason the protections existing for sex and applies them to situations of sexuality and gender. If you fire a man for kissing a man but wouldn't fire a woman for kissing a man, the only material difference is the individual's sex, hence it is sex discrimination. This is a relatively clean answer in terms of sexuality, it's much less clean in terms of gender. In order to reach the conclusion here for transgender issue, you have to apply the same logic. If you would fire a man who presents as a woman but not a woman who presents as a woman, the only difference is sex, therefore it's sex discrimination. You might have just noticed an ideological conflict here: A transgender woman who is fired where a biological woman would not be is now protected not by virtue of being a transgender woman, but by virtue of being a biological man.

There will almost certainly come a time where people will try and invoke transgender protections only to find that not only do those protections not exist, but that Supreme Court precedent on the subject is reasoned only by specifically biological sex, and only applies cleanly in situations of transition from one gender to the other in the binary. Attempt to apply SCOTUS' rationale to gender fluidity, you'll find the gray area real fast.
Does this mean in the case of hirings for something like being the PE teacher for an all girls school that the school refusing to hire a trans woman would not be found discriminatory?
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
Does this mean in the case of hirings for something like being the PE teacher for an all girls school that the school refusing to hire a trans woman would not found discriminatory?
Assuming it wouldn't be discriminatory for them to refuse to hire a man, which I don't actually know the legality of, it only means that this ruling wouldn't specifically protect that. it would likely have to run all the way back up throw the courts. If you already have a position that explicitly can only be filled by a specific sex, there's nothing in this case ruling that says anyone would have to treat a trans person as their presenting gender in hiring practices.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
EDIT: Oh, this is a particularly stupid section;

Trump said:
"In my judgment..."
That phrasing is almost begging us to think it's a bad idea. At least if it was "In the judgement of my administration", we might think that someone with the mentality of an adult thought about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
Does this mean in the case of hirings for something like being the PE teacher for an all girls school that the school refusing to hire a trans woman would not be found discriminatory?
Either way, it's discrimination based on sex.
The only reason there hasn't been a ruling on it is because there's less than 100 single-gender schools in the US and they're almost all tiny private and/or religious schools of the sort that trans people are unlikely to apply for.
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
1,977
348
88
Country
US
Generally speaking, trans women who transition don't get implants.
Forgive my ignorance. I thought that was exactly what "top surgery" was for trans women.

Either way, it's discrimination based on sex.
There are some jobs where you can explicitly discriminate with respect to sex, however. For example certain kinds of performers. And in those cases, unless I'm understanding it wrong one is still free to discriminate against trans folk.

So for example Chippendales could refuse to hire trans men on (essentially) the grounds that they are female, and the job is not open to female persons regardless of identity or expression.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
Forgive my ignorance. I thought that was exactly what "top surgery" was for trans women.
It can be done. Depends entirely on whether doctor and patient agree that could help with dysmorphia. A lot of trans women report that hormone therapy is enough in that regard. Again, a big part of the standard we're going by is: what is the opinion of the medical professional and their patient?
 

Tireseas

Plaguegirl
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
262
117
48
Seattle
Country
United States
Gender
Trans Woman
Forgive my ignorance. I thought that was exactly what "top surgery" was for trans women.
Both trans women, trans men, and non-binary folks have versions of "top surgery" that are designed to shape the chest in a way that conforms with their actual gender. Trans women, particularly those for whom HRT does not cause adequate chest growth, can get breast enhancement as a gender affirming surgery. Conversely, trans men can get breast reduction surgery which reduces the size of the breast tissue and sculpts it closer to a masculine pectoral. Non-binary folks will sometimes get top surgery based on their needs.

For example, my husband received his breast reduction surgery earlier this year and it has had a noticeable positive psychological effect on him as a person and has allowed him to be intimate with others in a way that was extremely uncomfortable before. Conversely, my chest growth has still been substantial without top surgery so far and while they are still smaller than ideal for my frame, I also will likely have a few years before I will look into breast enhancement surgery as HRT is having a noticeable effect.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,241
3,065
118
Country
United States of America
The military cannot deny someone by their race, religion or sex, so they can still be sued I would think.
There's a reason it says 'civilian employees' all over that page you linked. It's not a particularly good reason, but it seems to agree with current law.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
There are some jobs where you can explicitly discriminate with respect to sex, however. For example certain kinds of performers. And in those cases, unless I'm understanding it wrong one is still free to discriminate against trans folk.

So for example Chippendales could refuse to hire trans men on (essentially) the grounds that they are female, and the job is not open to female persons regardless of identity or expression.
Yes and no. I've seen some very Chippendale-esc trans dudes, and the strip club that was in the parking lot of the truck stop I worked at had at least one trans women.
Much to the lament of a dude that tried to take her back to his truck one night.
Though to his credit, he didn't mis-gender her, he just wasn't into dicks.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,203
1,706
118
Country
4
Trump is upset about this. Thinking firing people for their sexual preference is wrong, is officially against Republican values.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Trump is upset about this. Thinking firing people for their sexual preference is wrong, is officially against Republican values.
Rigging the courts has long been a favourite tactic of authoritarians.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
26,690
11,192
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Anything to screw over that btch-in-a-boxstand is fine by me. The LGBT have rights too, and I hate to see them get screwed over by dickholes.
 

Tireseas

Plaguegirl
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
262
117
48
Seattle
Country
United States
Gender
Trans Woman
There's a reason it says 'civilian employees' all over that page you linked. It's not a particularly good reason, but it seems to agree with current law.
The military has also generally been considered exempt from most labor laws due to the unique role that soldiers generally play within government, which works both ways. The military tends to do a lot of internal studies to minimize disruption within the ranks and the modification to the transgender soldier policy was no exception. Trans people were effectively allowed to serve openly in 2016 following study of the question and applicable integration questions. That said, it can also go in the other direction, as the ban issued by the Trump administration shows. Right now the ban issued by Trump is only in place as there is a general deference to military policy for the purposes of injunctions, and it's unclear how much basis an administration would need to demonstrate to be able to roll back a ban on an immutable class as, frankly, it's never been done in the modern civil rights era.