(from the bill) this: “Both LGBTQ people and women” and this: “LGBTQ people, especially transgender people and women” are phrased so strangely. i know what they’re getting at but the first one makes it seem like LGBTQ excludes women and the second makes it seem like there are not transgender women.
this provision is good:
No negative inference.—Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to support any inference that any Federal law prohibiting a practice on the basis of sex does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, sexual orientation, gender identity, or a sex stereotype.
but i can"t help but wonder if their definition of sexual orientation is too limiting
SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality
Removed by mod
I personally don’t think there’s a difference between bisexuality and pansexuality, but asexual is a thing.
Removed by mod
No, there’s no structural oppression against asexuality, but there’s also no structural oppression against heterosexuality, and the latter is explicitly mentioned as a sexual orientation in the bill.
Public school doesn’t like Bastiat’s The Law…
I do not share state interventionism … the government is abusive towards citizens, obeying the private interests of those who finance political campaigns.
It’s enough to respect human rights based on natural law, in general. But this modified language and validating subjective self-perceptions really borders on distorting reality.
Such a kind of propaganda is not protection. ¿protection of who? and on the other hand, in order to have a TRUE “equality and freedom for all” ¿who can protect people from stolen eleccions and from the Big tech?
the government is abusive towards citizens, obeying the private interests of those who finance political campaigns.
true, but doesn’t mean you should discard and oppose literally everything that the government does, especially if it is a good thing
It’s enough to respect human rights based on natural law, in general.
what exactly does that mean? the way something happens in nature doesn’t mean it is automatically a good thing, this is classic appeal to nature fallacy
this modified language and validating subjective self-perceptions really borders on distorting reality
lgbt is not about “validating false self-perceptions”, it’s about maximizing human happiness, it’s about making it easier for any person to live a better and happier live
people’s identity is a complex combination of biological gender, psychology and social practices, it’s very much different from saying that one identifies as an attack helicopter and then demanding absurd things as many far-fight people would want you to believe
Such a kind of propaganda is not protection. ¿protection of who?
lgbt people face systematic discrimination such as mocking and refusal to accept from the general public, inability to access proper medical care, trans people ending up in prisons of opposite gender etc etc
and this is by no means a worst case scenario, in most parts of the world lgbt live much much more miserable lives, if at all (in many places people are tortured and killed for their identity)
and on the other hand, in order to have a TRUE “equality and freedom for all” ¿who can protect people from stolen eleccions and from the Big tech?
sooo because we can’t have both a fair political system and lbgt right we might as well refuse them both? this makes no sense…
