Spare me the speech, elected Democrat, and show me the legislation that you are for or against.
When you endorse the Women's Bill of Rights, I will consider voting for you again.
When you come out against the Equality Act (which makes instantaneous unquestionable gender self-ID into federal law), I will consider voting for you again.
When you endorse parental rights to be informed about what names and pronouns their kids are using in school, I will consider voting for you again.
When you endorse a ban on the crime against humanity of sterilizing and mutilating children, I will consider voting for you again.
Lisa, I do love this focus of yours on getting after our electeds. Keep it going! I do have concern re the conflation of “LGB” with “T”, particularly for those of us who are L, who are really under siege right now. We can be allies—and grateful for it—but the concerns and needs of those of us who have same-sex orientation, particularly, are quite separate and distinct from anything to do with gender identity. To lump us all together is convenient for our electeds (for a lot of them, all we who are not hetero look just alike, and are weird, if not creepy) but this ersatz grouping obscures mightily, and with many negative consequences, the issues distinct to each. The best sources for understanding these issues are the LGBAlliance and The Lesbian Project. I commend them both to anyone who wants to learn more.
BTW, so this isn’t misunderstood, there are terrific organizations, like the LGBT Courage Coalition, that are doing great work. TERFs and Trannies is another. I by no means am sweeping these organizations into the point I am making above. These are bona fide coalitions/alliances doing important work. What I am speaking of is the mindless and meaningless use of phrases like “2SLGBTQ+ community” when used by politicians and organizations like the HRC and GLAAD, the former of which are completely clueless and unwilling to learn, the latter of which are acting malevolently, using LGB as a shield with which to cudgel us all into submission to gender ideology.
This is an imaginary letter from a democrat—doesn’t mean it’s true, but it’s the self-conception. I’m trying to talk to democrats in a way they can hear, and imagine ways they can recant. Doesn’t mean I believe personally—same with some of what I write Monday. They think transition saves kids’ lives. How do we engage with them based on that?
Agreed science has no party. Political science says that communications which flatter the recipient party in accord with their self-image work better than adversarial or admonishing messages. Something about flies and honey versus vinegar.
Thanks for that validation! I’m not saying they are the party of science, but that they see themselves that way. Which also provides an exit ramp because…science!
An interesting approach. I think you've misunderstood the Bostock decision and your letter promotes a misreading of the case that will not work to solve social or political controversy over “gender identity”.
In the Bostock v Clayton (U.S 140 S. Ct. 1731, 2020), the Supreme Court majority opinion applied what is commonly called “plain meaning” jurisprudence to the language of the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court looked to the meaning of “sex” as it was understood when the law was enacted, and noted specifically that the parties conceded that in 1964 “sex” meant biological sex – the difference between males and females.
The Bostock majority determined that the gay and “transgender status” litigants were discriminated against in employment because they had been fired from their jobs on account of their sex, and cited (without discussion) the Price Waterhouse case.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) was the landmark case that interpreted Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination in employment to discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes. In Price Waterhouse, the female employee, Anne Hopkins, was not promoted on the basis of her employers’ perception of her as too abrasive or aggressive - for a woman.
Consequently, I read the Bostock holding as a kind of “reverse discrimination” case, which extends Title VII’s protection against sex-based stereotypes to men. Under the facts of the litigants, that means that sex-based stereotypes about men – that they should be same-sex oriented, or appear and/or act “masculine”, cannot be the basis for employment (hiring/firing) decisions.
In this lawyer's opinion, that is the right result, on the basis of the right analysis.
The Bostock majority made clear that its decision only addressed the employment hiring/firing context, and did not reach issues such as single-sex restrooms and other single-sex services.
One does not have to be a lawyer to make sense of the majority opinions in these cases.
To find the Supreme Court’s opinions in Bostock and Price Waterhouse:
Okay, so you're saying that it doesn't protect with regards to gender identity? Rather, with sex-based expectations—so it protects a male who wears a dress, not a male who identifies as a female? Forgive me if I misunderstood. I very much want to get it right!
Lisa, here is the exact language from Bostock, limiting the holding to Title VII:
The employers worry that our decision will sweep beyond Title VII to other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination. And, under Title VII itself, they say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today. But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today. Under Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual “because of such individual’s sex.” As used in Title VII, the term “ ‘discriminate against’ “ refers to “distinctions or differences in treatment that injure protected individuals.” Burlington N. & S.F.R., 548 U.S. at 59, 126 S.Ct. 2405. Firing employees because of a statutorily protected trait surely counts. Whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.
Hi, Lisa: the best person on Bostock is Kara Dansky, if you have a way to get in touch with her, but I will give it a go. The problem with Bostock is that it redefined sex to include gender identity and sexual orientation, rather than, for example set the two categories as new categories. The terrible result of this is that, if you include gender identity, particularly, within the definition of sex, you actually define sex itself out of existence. Now, Bostock is limited to Title VII, but the Obama and Biden administrations made matters much worse by extending the Bostock definition to every place in law and regulation where the word sex appears. Kara’s book, The Abolition of Sex, is where I learned (to my horror) that this had happened—and also that, per the language of the decision itself, this wasn’t necessary, as the majority holding made clear they were not making an interpretation of any regulation except Title VII. But, really, Kara is the absolute go-to person on this, so do get in touch with her, if you have a way to do it.
As I understood the statement of facts in Bostock (which consolidated three cases of 2 gay men and 1 trans-identified man), the trans-identified man was more than a transvestite; he "identified" as a female (the court specifically described him as "transgender status", using quotation marks). But the court was concerned with stereotypes, not his claim to be female. The Supreme Court treated him as a male who had been subjected impermissably to stereotyping in employment. Which is why, when I am asked to explain the case, I describe it as a "reverse stereotype discrimination" case, based on my close reading of the facts, reasoning and holding.
And I'm suggesting that your letter should take care with how it represents Bostock, to avoid perpetuating unwarranted expectations about the scope of the decision.
I'm saying Bostock protects people against employment discrimination on the basis of sex-stereotypes, which includes sex-stereotypes of sexual orientation and what the majority opinion described as "transgender status", which I understood to be the sex-stereotypes of masculinity and femininity (what we used to call "gender").
Yes, that's what it's saying. If a male doesn't confirm to sex-based stereotypes (in this case, "what women wear" and "what men wear"), he can't be fired for it.
This is very good. It gives Dems a realistic and reasonable way of back-peddling without losing face. However, I would amend this part: "Our Republican colleagues have used the blunt instrument of bans to fire up their bases and flex their muscles, often terrifying the people who believe they need these interventions, who see them as life-saving." I would instead have it say "Our Republican colleagues have fought back against these wayward medical institutions by enacting bans on "gender affirming care" for minors in 23 states. It behooves Republicans and Democrats to listen to the information revealed by systematic reviews of the evidence in these European Countries, to call for our own systematic reviews, and to put a halt to medical interventions performed on minors until such time that, together, we can determine if there is a proper scientific basis for them. Democrats must follow the science!"
I do a lot of editing in my line of work. I wonder if in your effort to use a reasonable tone, you're soft pedaling so much it takes the life out of the letter. It would be best if you could keep it to one page.
Here is my best shot. It's longer than most readers would prefer, but it's a start: Dear Voter:
I’m proud to represent you, and to be a Democrat—historically the big tent party, the party that champions the little guy, insists the wealthy pay their fair share, and upholds women’s and LGBT rights.
That includes the issues facing women and trans people. Several historic laws, Constitutional amendments, and Supreme Court cases protect the civil rights of those groups. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex (as well as race, color, religion, and national origin). Bostock v. Clayton County, from 2019, ensures that “sex” includes sexual orientation and gender identity, protecting both gay and transgender persons from employment discrimination.
We must admit that, in some cases, the needs, privileges, and rights of women and transgender persons compete. As the pluralistic party, we cannot simply choose one group over another. We must look beyond party lines to figure out what’s best, which means engaging in difficult discussions about proposed changes to Title IX and to single-sex sports.
We must continue to be the party of science, which means that whenever new evidence is introduced, we incorporate it into policy, and revise as necessary. This is particularly important when it comes to the gender affirming model of care for young people.
Over the last year, as Republicans have tried to ban medical interventions for this cohort, we’ve watched as several European countries worked to alter their approach— based on evidence, and not ideology or politics. Countries like Finland, Sweden and England have created new guidelines and models of care that insist on careful evaluation over a long period of time; psychological support as the first line of intervention; and long-term follow-up of any minor who receives gender medical interventions, often in the context of a study.
These countries shifted approaches because they saw that the existing body of evidence was of very low quality; that more young people than expected were regretting their changes and detransitioning; and that the cohort requesting medical interventions were quite different from those on which that existing evidence was based. They realized they simply didn’t know enough about who would benefit from, and who would be harmed by, medical interventions.
We had hoped that the American medical associations would follow suit. Instead, they have continued to insist that their model is without flaws. Our Republican colleagues have used the blunt instrument of bans to fire up their bases and flex their muscles, often terrifying the people who believe they need these interventions, who see them as life-saving.
Research reveals that while Democrats continue to support trans people’s civil rights, we’re much more divided within our party on gender-affirming care. Indeed, a number of Democrats have broken ranks to support that legislation, preventing minors from accessing medical interventions like cross-sex hormones or surgeries until adulthood. They did this not out of bigotry, but because they have become better informed.
I have heard from many of my constituents that, while they don’t support bans in general, they do believe that the youth gender medical industry needs scrutiny and reform. We are dedicated to upholding the civil rights of all people, no matter how they express gender, no matter how they identify, no matter what sex they are.
In the coming months, we promise to listen to all our constituents on these matters, to create an environment where we can have respectful debate, to invite you in to work with us on these issues, and on defeating Donald Trump. We look forward to hearing from you, and welcome your input.
Spare me the speech, elected Democrat, and show me the legislation that you are for or against.
When you endorse the Women's Bill of Rights, I will consider voting for you again.
When you come out against the Equality Act (which makes instantaneous unquestionable gender self-ID into federal law), I will consider voting for you again.
When you endorse parental rights to be informed about what names and pronouns their kids are using in school, I will consider voting for you again.
When you endorse a ban on the crime against humanity of sterilizing and mutilating children, I will consider voting for you again.
Not before.
https://womensbillofrights.com
Lisa, I do love this focus of yours on getting after our electeds. Keep it going! I do have concern re the conflation of “LGB” with “T”, particularly for those of us who are L, who are really under siege right now. We can be allies—and grateful for it—but the concerns and needs of those of us who have same-sex orientation, particularly, are quite separate and distinct from anything to do with gender identity. To lump us all together is convenient for our electeds (for a lot of them, all we who are not hetero look just alike, and are weird, if not creepy) but this ersatz grouping obscures mightily, and with many negative consequences, the issues distinct to each. The best sources for understanding these issues are the LGBAlliance and The Lesbian Project. I commend them both to anyone who wants to learn more.
BTW, so this isn’t misunderstood, there are terrific organizations, like the LGBT Courage Coalition, that are doing great work. TERFs and Trannies is another. I by no means am sweeping these organizations into the point I am making above. These are bona fide coalitions/alliances doing important work. What I am speaking of is the mindless and meaningless use of phrases like “2SLGBTQ+ community” when used by politicians and organizations like the HRC and GLAAD, the former of which are completely clueless and unwilling to learn, the latter of which are acting malevolently, using LGB as a shield with which to cudgel us all into submission to gender ideology.
How exactly are the Democrats the "party of science"?
This is an imaginary letter from a democrat—doesn’t mean it’s true, but it’s the self-conception. I’m trying to talk to democrats in a way they can hear, and imagine ways they can recant. Doesn’t mean I believe personally—same with some of what I write Monday. They think transition saves kids’ lives. How do we engage with them based on that?
Agreed science has no party. Political science says that communications which flatter the recipient party in accord with their self-image work better than adversarial or admonishing messages. Something about flies and honey versus vinegar.
Thanks for that validation! I’m not saying they are the party of science, but that they see themselves that way. Which also provides an exit ramp because…science!
An interesting approach. I think you've misunderstood the Bostock decision and your letter promotes a misreading of the case that will not work to solve social or political controversy over “gender identity”.
In the Bostock v Clayton (U.S 140 S. Ct. 1731, 2020), the Supreme Court majority opinion applied what is commonly called “plain meaning” jurisprudence to the language of the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court looked to the meaning of “sex” as it was understood when the law was enacted, and noted specifically that the parties conceded that in 1964 “sex” meant biological sex – the difference between males and females.
The Bostock majority determined that the gay and “transgender status” litigants were discriminated against in employment because they had been fired from their jobs on account of their sex, and cited (without discussion) the Price Waterhouse case.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) was the landmark case that interpreted Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination in employment to discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes. In Price Waterhouse, the female employee, Anne Hopkins, was not promoted on the basis of her employers’ perception of her as too abrasive or aggressive - for a woman.
Consequently, I read the Bostock holding as a kind of “reverse discrimination” case, which extends Title VII’s protection against sex-based stereotypes to men. Under the facts of the litigants, that means that sex-based stereotypes about men – that they should be same-sex oriented, or appear and/or act “masculine”, cannot be the basis for employment (hiring/firing) decisions.
In this lawyer's opinion, that is the right result, on the basis of the right analysis.
The Bostock majority made clear that its decision only addressed the employment hiring/firing context, and did not reach issues such as single-sex restrooms and other single-sex services.
One does not have to be a lawyer to make sense of the majority opinions in these cases.
To find the Supreme Court’s opinions in Bostock and Price Waterhouse:
Bostock: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Price Waterhouse: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/228/
Okay, so you're saying that it doesn't protect with regards to gender identity? Rather, with sex-based expectations—so it protects a male who wears a dress, not a male who identifies as a female? Forgive me if I misunderstood. I very much want to get it right!
Lisa, here is the exact language from Bostock, limiting the holding to Title VII:
The employers worry that our decision will sweep beyond Title VII to other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination. And, under Title VII itself, they say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today. But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today. Under Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual “because of such individual’s sex.” As used in Title VII, the term “ ‘discriminate against’ “ refers to “distinctions or differences in treatment that injure protected individuals.” Burlington N. & S.F.R., 548 U.S. at 59, 126 S.Ct. 2405. Firing employees because of a statutorily protected trait surely counts. Whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.
Hi, Lisa: the best person on Bostock is Kara Dansky, if you have a way to get in touch with her, but I will give it a go. The problem with Bostock is that it redefined sex to include gender identity and sexual orientation, rather than, for example set the two categories as new categories. The terrible result of this is that, if you include gender identity, particularly, within the definition of sex, you actually define sex itself out of existence. Now, Bostock is limited to Title VII, but the Obama and Biden administrations made matters much worse by extending the Bostock definition to every place in law and regulation where the word sex appears. Kara’s book, The Abolition of Sex, is where I learned (to my horror) that this had happened—and also that, per the language of the decision itself, this wasn’t necessary, as the majority holding made clear they were not making an interpretation of any regulation except Title VII. But, really, Kara is the absolute go-to person on this, so do get in touch with her, if you have a way to do it.
As I understood the statement of facts in Bostock (which consolidated three cases of 2 gay men and 1 trans-identified man), the trans-identified man was more than a transvestite; he "identified" as a female (the court specifically described him as "transgender status", using quotation marks). But the court was concerned with stereotypes, not his claim to be female. The Supreme Court treated him as a male who had been subjected impermissably to stereotyping in employment. Which is why, when I am asked to explain the case, I describe it as a "reverse stereotype discrimination" case, based on my close reading of the facts, reasoning and holding.
And I'm suggesting that your letter should take care with how it represents Bostock, to avoid perpetuating unwarranted expectations about the scope of the decision.
I'm saying Bostock protects people against employment discrimination on the basis of sex-stereotypes, which includes sex-stereotypes of sexual orientation and what the majority opinion described as "transgender status", which I understood to be the sex-stereotypes of masculinity and femininity (what we used to call "gender").
Yes, that's what it's saying. If a male doesn't confirm to sex-based stereotypes (in this case, "what women wear" and "what men wear"), he can't be fired for it.
This is great, thank you!!!
Have you considered suggesting that Democrats consider the proposed Equality for All Act, drafted by Women's Declaration Internat'l-USA? That is a viable alternative to the more recent proposals of the Equality Act that included "gender identity", and few people know about it. https://womensdeclarationusa.com/equality-for-all-act.../?fbclid=IwAR3EXaogCQInnSCY2mgAb-noBTOheTG6dNiFr6Z5NSV96raaRMmNQggAg3Q
This is very good. It gives Dems a realistic and reasonable way of back-peddling without losing face. However, I would amend this part: "Our Republican colleagues have used the blunt instrument of bans to fire up their bases and flex their muscles, often terrifying the people who believe they need these interventions, who see them as life-saving." I would instead have it say "Our Republican colleagues have fought back against these wayward medical institutions by enacting bans on "gender affirming care" for minors in 23 states. It behooves Republicans and Democrats to listen to the information revealed by systematic reviews of the evidence in these European Countries, to call for our own systematic reviews, and to put a halt to medical interventions performed on minors until such time that, together, we can determine if there is a proper scientific basis for them. Democrats must follow the science!"
I do a lot of editing in my line of work. I wonder if in your effort to use a reasonable tone, you're soft pedaling so much it takes the life out of the letter. It would be best if you could keep it to one page.
Here is my best shot. It's longer than most readers would prefer, but it's a start: Dear Voter:
I’m proud to represent you, and to be a Democrat—historically the big tent party, the party that champions the little guy, insists the wealthy pay their fair share, and upholds women’s and LGBT rights.
That includes the issues facing women and trans people. Several historic laws, Constitutional amendments, and Supreme Court cases protect the civil rights of those groups. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex (as well as race, color, religion, and national origin). Bostock v. Clayton County, from 2019, ensures that “sex” includes sexual orientation and gender identity, protecting both gay and transgender persons from employment discrimination.
We must admit that, in some cases, the needs, privileges, and rights of women and transgender persons compete. As the pluralistic party, we cannot simply choose one group over another. We must look beyond party lines to figure out what’s best, which means engaging in difficult discussions about proposed changes to Title IX and to single-sex sports.
We must continue to be the party of science, which means that whenever new evidence is introduced, we incorporate it into policy, and revise as necessary. This is particularly important when it comes to the gender affirming model of care for young people.
Over the last year, as Republicans have tried to ban medical interventions for this cohort, we’ve watched as several European countries worked to alter their approach— based on evidence, and not ideology or politics. Countries like Finland, Sweden and England have created new guidelines and models of care that insist on careful evaluation over a long period of time; psychological support as the first line of intervention; and long-term follow-up of any minor who receives gender medical interventions, often in the context of a study.
These countries shifted approaches because they saw that the existing body of evidence was of very low quality; that more young people than expected were regretting their changes and detransitioning; and that the cohort requesting medical interventions were quite different from those on which that existing evidence was based. They realized they simply didn’t know enough about who would benefit from, and who would be harmed by, medical interventions.
We had hoped that the American medical associations would follow suit. Instead, they have continued to insist that their model is without flaws. Our Republican colleagues have used the blunt instrument of bans to fire up their bases and flex their muscles, often terrifying the people who believe they need these interventions, who see them as life-saving.
Research reveals that while Democrats continue to support trans people’s civil rights, we’re much more divided within our party on gender-affirming care. Indeed, a number of Democrats have broken ranks to support that legislation, preventing minors from accessing medical interventions like cross-sex hormones or surgeries until adulthood. They did this not out of bigotry, but because they have become better informed.
I have heard from many of my constituents that, while they don’t support bans in general, they do believe that the youth gender medical industry needs scrutiny and reform. We are dedicated to upholding the civil rights of all people, no matter how they express gender, no matter how they identify, no matter what sex they are.
In the coming months, we promise to listen to all our constituents on these matters, to create an environment where we can have respectful debate, to invite you in to work with us on these issues, and on defeating Donald Trump. We look forward to hearing from you, and welcome your input.
Sincerely,
Your Imaginary Democrat
One could link to the zembla documentary about the evidence base?
I realize you don't want too many references, but a breadcrumb , maybe? This is about Europe....