SCOTUS rules in favor of LGBT worker protections

[Metaphor]

As to age of consent, I would sooner see symmetry between genders on treatment there.

Age of consent might vary by sex in different jurisdictions, but not by gender.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If the Conservatives on the court can expand the word human to include corporations and expand the word speech to include money I don’t see why they should be upset by expanding the word sex to include sexual orientation.

But those things never happened. The court hasn't ruled that "human" includes corporations or "speech" includes money. Those are just ideologues' anti-SCOTUS blood libel.

Ok... so it's more that they said that the more money you can spend the more and better free speech you have:

"A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached."

But my point is that the court all the time makes rulings that expand on the literal wordings of laws or the constitution. So, I believe it is disingenuous for conservatives to be against that when it's not their favor.

 

[Jarhyn]

As to age of consent, I would sooner see symmetry between genders on treatment there.

Age of consent might vary by sex in different jurisdictions, but not by gender.

Are you kidding? Straight vs. Gay Age of Consent: The Difference

Many states and countries discriminate based on gender

Some discriminate based on whether "vaginal penetration" was involved, some based on the gender or available genitals of the participants, and so on.

So, you're going to get yourself whipped into another froth. And I'm going to be thoroughly amused by that for a while. But the fact is, until the last 10-15 years, most of society said there was no difference, and the laws were written with the assumption that sex = gender. Not that it made much difference, mind.

We can have this conversation again if you want. Sometimes the laws say vaginal/anal/oral, sometimes the laws say male/female, assuming the genitals and secondary hormone effects are the total of differentiated sex. But let's see it. Let's see Metaphor's blood pressure go up again beating his hobby horse.

You keep on bringing this up, as if it has meaning in this context. Laws should not in any way be based on the thing in a person's pants. The law should be 100% genital and gender agnostic.

The only time that genitals should ever enter the picture is perhaps in a discussion about fraudulent disclosure prior to intercourse, and even then nothing about the specific genitals, merely that someone has a right to know what the thing they're running their thing against most resembles. Well, that and their doctor's office because their doctor also needs to know the full provenance of your body for proper treatment.

 

[Jokodo]

As to age of consent, I would sooner see symmetry between genders on treatment there.

Age of consent might vary by sex in different jurisdictions, but not by gender.

Since few if any jurisdiction employ a legally binding definition of biological sex, this cannot logically be true.

While individual judges may offer judgments in one or the other direction, the law (in most places) has no opinion on whether a person with feminized external genitals and a 46, XY chromosome set, or the (rarer) 46, XX with virilized genitalia, is male or female. Where the law discriminates, it can only discriminate by the gender the person is identified with in its personal documentation, even as that field is oftentimes misnamed "sex".

 

[Bomb#20]

Ok... so it's more that they said that the more money you can spend the more and better free speech you have:

"A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached."

And the more money you can spend on a plane ticket to Saudi Arabia the more and better freedom to make the Hajj you have; and the more money you can spend on a gun the better arms you can afford to bear; and the more money you can spend on a mortgage the more likely you are to benefit from the government not quartering a soldier in your house. Thus, the SCOTUS expanded religion to include money, the Constitution only protects the rich, and none of the so-called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man. Do you think if the government barred a man from spending more of his money on his religious observances than his neighbor can afford, that would qualify as "freedom of religion"?

But my point is that the court all the time makes rulings that expand on the literal wordings of laws or the constitution. So, I believe it is disingenuous for conservatives to be against that when it's not their favor.

Well, disingenuousness is a common failing of people of all political stripes, particularly if they are themselves politicians; I do not mean to suggest conservatives in general are any less guilty of this than anyone else. But a ruling that expands something is by definition a ruling that changes the status quo; conservatives are so well-noted for their fondness for the status quo their ideology is named after it. Do you have other examples in mind of rulings conservatives were for, that expanded on the literal wordings of laws?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, disingenuousness is a common failing of people of all political stripes, particularly if they are themselves politicians; I do not mean to suggest conservatives in general are any less guilty of this than anyone else. But a ruling that expands something is by definition a ruling that changes the status quo; conservatives are so well-noted for their fondness for the status quo their ideology is named after it. Do you have other examples in mind of rulings conservatives were for, that expanded on the literal wordings of laws?

I recall my right wing acquaintances who insist that the revolutionary war was undertaken by conservatives, that democracy and voting is a conservative introduction, and that the KKK is associated today with the democratic party, from which it draws most of its membership and support.

 

[Metaphor]

Are you kidding? Straight vs. Gay Age of Consent: The Difference

Many states and countries discriminate based on gender

I looked up Australia's age of consent laws. In every state and territory, the age of consent is the same between men and women. In the past, it was not always the same (women sometimes had a lower age of consent, and the age of consent to homosexual acts was higher).

Not a single one of these laws discriminated by gender when they did discriminate. Gender was not known or considered. They discriminated only by sex.

Some discriminate based on whether "vaginal penetration" was involved, some based on the gender or available genitals of the participants, and so on.

Which jurisdictions discriminate based on gender and not sex?

So, you're going to get yourself whipped into another froth. And I'm going to be thoroughly amused by that for a while. But the fact is, until the last 10-15 years, most of society said there was no difference, and the laws were written with the assumption that sex = gender. Not that it made much difference, mind.

Sex does not equal gender, and the laws were written with sex in mind, not gender.

We can have this conversation again if you want. Sometimes the laws say vaginal/anal/oral, sometimes the laws say male/female, assuming the genitals and secondary hormone effects are the total of differentiated sex. But let's see it. Let's see Metaphor's blood pressure go up again beating his hobby horse.

You keep on bringing this up, as if it has meaning in this context. Laws should not in any way be based on the thing in a person's pants. The law should be 100% genital and gender agnostic.

The law is gender agnostic. The laws had not always been "genital" agnostic, just as, in some jurisdictions like the UK, only people with a penis can commit rape.

The only time that genitals should ever enter the picture is perhaps in a discussion about fraudulent disclosure prior to intercourse, and even then nothing about the specific genitals, merely that someone has a right to know what the thing they're running their thing against most resembles. Well, that and their doctor's office because their doctor also needs to know the full provenance of your body for proper treatment.

I'm not suggesting that age of consent laws should discriminate based on genitals. I'm pointing out your error in conflating sex and gender. Consent laws never conflated them; they were concerned only with sex. And in Australia, they no longer discriminate by sex.

 

[Jarhyn]

I looked up Australia's age of consent laws. In every state and territory, the age of consent is the same between men and women. In the past, it was not always the same (women sometimes had a lower age of consent, and the age of consent to homosexual acts was higher).

Not a single one of these laws discriminated by gender when they did discriminate. Gender was not known or considered. They discriminated only by sex.



Which jurisdictions discriminate based on gender and not sex?

So, you're going to get yourself whipped into another froth. And I'm going to be thoroughly amused by that for a while. But the fact is, until the last 10-15 years, most of society said there was no difference, and the laws were written with the assumption that sex = gender. Not that it made much difference, mind.

Sex does not equal gender, and the laws were written with sex in mind, not gender.

We can have this conversation again if you want. Sometimes the laws say vaginal/anal/oral, sometimes the laws say male/female, assuming the genitals and secondary hormone effects are the total of differentiated sex. But let's see it. Let's see Metaphor's blood pressure go up again beating his hobby horse.

You keep on bringing this up, as if it has meaning in this context. Laws should not in any way be based on the thing in a person's pants. The law should be 100% genital and gender agnostic.

The law is gender agnostic. The laws had not always been "genital" agnostic, just as, in some jurisdictions like the UK, only people with a penis can commit rape.

The only time that genitals should ever enter the picture is perhaps in a discussion about fraudulent disclosure prior to intercourse, and even then nothing about the specific genitals, merely that someone has a right to know what the thing they're running their thing against most resembles. Well, that and their doctor's office because their doctor also needs to know the full provenance of your body for proper treatment.

I'm not suggesting that age of consent laws should discriminate based on genitals. I'm pointing out your error in conflating sex and gender. Consent laws never conflated them; they were concerned only with sex. And in Australia, they no longer discriminate by sex.

As others have pointed out, given the absence of any legal definition of "man" or "woman" or "male" or "female", your argument has no legs.

Consent laws are about whatever wishy-washy thing that someone felt like declaring at the time. People have interpreted them both ways on numerous occasions in pretty much every jurisdiction that there is.

And of course, "sex" is also not a Boolean value. Genitals are the least part of sex, even if they create the most consternation through the hormones they produce.

 

[paladin.oa]

Animals cannot give "consent"

Not even to each other?
WOW. I need to watch more Discovery Channel

]https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/humans-are-animals-too-a-whirlwind-tour-of-cognitive-biology[

Read the full post.