4 ms·

The supporters (is that the right word) seem to agree. The issue isn't that the people were discriminated based on their sexual orientation or gender identity,

The supporters (is that the right word) seem to agree. The issue isn't that the people were discriminated based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, but because of their sex. That is to say, if they were males presenting as females, then the discrimination is based on their sex of being male because had they been female presenting as female they would not have faced such discrimination. It seems like a six of one half dozen of another distinction, but I think it may become a factor when you start considering other sexual orientations. Primarily asexual individuals, but there are a number of other characteristics of humans that are currently classified as sexual attractions and not orientations but which some scientists think should be reclassified based on the biological/neurological basis as we better understand the difference between a preference and an orientation.

jakkyboi 6y ago
No you're completely right, the argument they make is quite correct: the discrimination is based on preconceived notions of who a certain sex is allowed to present as or be attracted to. The correct term would be the majority, or assenters maybe
_asummers 6y ago
> The supporters (is that the right word) FYI - the word is "the majority".
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> there are a number of other characteristics of humans that are currently classified as sexual attractions and not orientations but which some scientists think should be reclassified based on the biological/neurological basis as we better understand the difference between a preference and an orientation. Could you give some further info please. You're talking distinctions that mean nothing to me. How could sexual attraction not be orientation or preference? It just doesn't make sense.
- basch 6y ago
  A blanket policy ban on hiring people attracted to women, or people attracted to both sexes, or attracted to neither sex. The court did not add "sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes, they just said that firing a man for being attracted to a man, but not firing a woman for being attracted to a man is discrimination based on the sex of the employee.

jakkyboi 6y ago

No you're completely right, the argument they make is quite correct: the discrimination is based on preconceived notions of who a certain sex is allowed to present as or be attracted to. The correct term would be the majority, or assenters maybe

_asummers 6y ago

> The supporters (is that the right word) FYI - the word is "the majority".

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

> there are a number of other characteristics of humans that are currently classified as sexual attractions and not orientations but which some scientists think should be reclassified based on the biological/neurological basis as we better understand the difference between a preference and an orientation. Could you give some further info please. You're talking distinctions that mean nothing to me. How could sexual attraction not be orientation or preference? It just doesn't make sense.

basch 6y ago
A blanket policy ban on hiring people attracted to women, or people attracted to both sexes, or attracted to neither sex. The court did not add "sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes, they just said that firing a man for being attracted to a man, but not firing a woman for being attracted to a man is discrimination based on the sex of the employee.