4 ms·

>No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination unde

by slg 4y ago

>No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. That is the original text. Wild that being against that is a popular enough sentiment that it can appear at the top of the comments on a HN thread.

cato_the_elder 4y ago
> That is the original text. But that's probably not what happens in practice. More affirmative action and diversity quotas is the likely outcome. > Wild that being against that is a popular enough sentiment that it can appear at the top of the comments on a HN thread. It don't think that's too popular on HN. It probably appears at the top only due to recency. It's probably more popular among the general population of the US, which is kinda what matters.
- beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > Have you been a minority in tech? Yes. > any environment controlled by a HR policy. Well, HN isn't really "controlled by an HR policy". Yet, contrary to your expectation, my original comment is already being downvoted.
    - beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
    - beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
      https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-support-for-lgbtq-rights-often-stops-with-transgender-rights/amp/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-support-for-l...
      - cato_the_elder 4y ago
        That's among the general US population, which kinda supports my point?
        beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
- slg 4y ago
  >But that's probably not what happens in practice. More affirmative action and diversity quotas is the likely outcome. So you are not even sure what Title IX does and are instead basing your desire for repeal on "probably" and "likely"?
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > basing your desire for repeal on "probably" and "likely"? I'm talking about the current executive order. What's there to evaluate except "likely"s and "probably"s? My support for repealing parts of the civil rights laws is mostly based on Richard Hanania's argument about how it lead to wokeness.
    - slg 4y ago
      > argument about how it lead to wokeness. Ok, so there was no point in responding to you.
      - cato_the_elder 4y ago
        > Ok, so there was no point in responding to you. Maybe, as your comment had little content (except showing contempt). But there might be a point in reading Hanania's argument: https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-just-civil-rights https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-j...
        slg 4y ago
        My most recent comment was not about the merits of the argument for repeal. It was about the way you used the term "wokeness". You didn't say something like "wokeness has gone too far." That would grant some ethical ambiguity to the word. You used it as something that is inherently bad and needs to be avoided. People who do that generally have an awful definition for the word and are usually already so set in their ways that there is no point to debate the issue.
        4y ago
beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
harshreality 4y ago
LGB is literally not about sex or even sex presentation. Trying to use Title IX to protect sexual orientation is invalid legal creep. There are other reasons not to discriminate based on sexual orientation. (And, legally, it's prohibited by state laws; some states have them, while others don't.) Title IX protects against discrimination based on sex, which to me reads as innate characteristics or needs. That doesn't read to me like you can sex-swap, either via pretending, hormones, and/or through surgeries that only superficially change primary sex characteristics... and then create all sorts of drama, and claim discrimination if people around you want to get on with whatever academics or sports or business without catering to your special T/Q physiological or linguistic needs or preferences.
- slg 4y ago
  Sam is attracted to men. Is Sam gay or straight? Or can you not answer that question without knowing Sam's gender? The sexual orientation categories we generally use only exist as a pair of the person's own gender and the gender to which they are attracted. Therefore discrimination based on sexual orientation is inherently discrimination based on sex (really gender, but the law typically uses sex) because a change in sex would change their orientation.
  - lostmsu 4y ago
    He is saying you can not change sex the innate characteristic, which Title IX protects.

by slg 4y ago

cato_the_elder 4y ago

> That is the original text. But that's probably not what happens in practice. More affirmative action and diversity quotas is the likely outcome. > Wild that being against that is a popular enough sentiment that it can appear at the top of the comments on a HN thread. It don't think that's too popular on HN. It probably appears at the top only due to recency. It's probably more popular among the general population of the US, which is kinda what matters.

beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > Have you been a minority in tech? Yes. > any environment controlled by a HR policy. Well, HN isn't really "controlled by an HR policy". Yet, contrary to your expectation, my original comment is already being downvoted.
  - beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
  - beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-support-for-lgbtq-rights-often-stops-with-transgender-rights/amp/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-support-for-l...
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      That's among the general US population, which kinda supports my point?
      - beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
slg 4y ago
>But that's probably not what happens in practice. More affirmative action and diversity quotas is the likely outcome. So you are not even sure what Title IX does and are instead basing your desire for repeal on "probably" and "likely"?
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > basing your desire for repeal on "probably" and "likely"? I'm talking about the current executive order. What's there to evaluate except "likely"s and "probably"s? My support for repealing parts of the civil rights laws is mostly based on Richard Hanania's argument about how it lead to wokeness.
  - slg 4y ago
    > argument about how it lead to wokeness. Ok, so there was no point in responding to you.
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      > Ok, so there was no point in responding to you. Maybe, as your comment had little content (except showing contempt). But there might be a point in reading Hanania's argument: https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-just-civil-rights https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-j...
      - slg 4y ago
        My most recent comment was not about the merits of the argument for repeal. It was about the way you used the term "wokeness". You didn't say something like "wokeness has gone too far." That would grant some ethical ambiguity to the word. You used it as something that is inherently bad and needs to be avoided. People who do that generally have an awful definition for the word and are usually already so set in their ways that there is no point to debate the issue.
        4y ago

beepbeepcabbage 4y ago

harshreality 4y ago

LGB is literally not about sex or even sex presentation. Trying to use Title IX to protect sexual orientation is invalid legal creep. There are other reasons not to discriminate based on sexual orientation. (And, legally, it's prohibited by state laws; some states have them, while others don't.) Title IX protects against discrimination based on sex, which to me reads as innate characteristics or needs. That doesn't read to me like you can sex-swap, either via pretending, hormones, and/or through surgeries that only superficially change primary sex characteristics... and then create all sorts of drama, and claim discrimination if people around you want to get on with whatever academics or sports or business without catering to your special T/Q physiological or linguistic needs or preferences.

slg 4y ago
Sam is attracted to men. Is Sam gay or straight? Or can you not answer that question without knowing Sam's gender? The sexual orientation categories we generally use only exist as a pair of the person's own gender and the gender to which they are attracted. Therefore discrimination based on sexual orientation is inherently discrimination based on sex (really gender, but the law typically uses sex) because a change in sex would change their orientation.
- lostmsu 4y ago
  He is saying you can not change sex the innate characteristic, which Title IX protects.