Notes on the Journey

Posts tagged ‘Aimee Stevens’

Tranz-bloviating In The Daily Iowan

Opinion: Trans-rights case proves America has a way to go on equality

With Aimee Stephens’ Supreme Court case up in the air, we should reflect on all the ways we as a society can improve the lives of our fellow citizens.

Margo+O%27Neill+addresses+the+crowd+during+a+transgender+rights+rally+on+the+Pentacrest+on+Thursday%2C+Oct.+25%2C+2018.+Protesters+gathered+to+promote+rights+in+light+of+the+upcoming+elections.

Katie Goodale

Margo O’Neill addresses the crowd during a transgender rights rally on the Pentacrest on Thursday, Oct. 25, 2018. Protesters gathered to promote rights in light of the upcoming elections.

Peyton Downing, Columnist

Ever since the Stonewall riots in 1969, LGBTQ rights have made significant headway in America. But there is still much work to be done, and nowhere is this clearer than a case that reached the Supreme Court Oct. 8.

Aimee Stephens is a transgender woman who was fired from her job after coming out to her employer. The reason for firing her was that she did not conform to the dress code of her assigned gender at birth.

Since then, Stephens has been locked in a legal battle with her former employers. What grieves me the most about the situation is that Michigan, where Stevens worked, allows for the legal change of one’s gender identity on documents such as birth certificates and driver’s licenses. Stephens is, in every sense of the word, a woman. And yet, because Stephens’ employer knew her before she transitioned, she was fired.

This Supreme Court case is critical because of what there is to lose. In some states, people can still be fired for their identity — all it takes to not get sued as an employer is to give a random reason that can’t be disproven. But if Stephens loses this case, that means no person who presents themselves outside of stereotypical gender norms has safe employment.

These attacks on the rights of American citizens can be called nothing but unjust and cruel, and it is a shame that Iowa is still behind on the curve.”

Though I do not wish to undermine the importance of this court case, there are other battles going on now that are just as important but do not see such headlines.

Thirty-three states still allow conversion therapy for minors, which has been called “dangerous and discredited” by the Human Rights Campaign. There have been multiple attempts to make it illegal in Iowa, but they have failed. In 2015, the Iowa Senate passed a bill that would ban it, but it died without a vote in the state House.

In 2016 the Iowa Board of Psychology voted not to ban the practice of conversion therapy. The board did this not because it’s safe for minors, but because board members thought the General Assembly should be the one to pass any legislation or laws relating to it, even though the board unanimously agreed that the practice should be banned.

Medicaid-covered sex-reassignment surgery in the state is also under attack. Earlier this year, the Iowa Supreme Court stated that sex-reassignment surgery must be covered under Medicaid. But one month later, the General Assembly passed a budget bill that bans state funding for the surgeries, and Gov. Kim Reynolds passed the bill without vetoing any part of it.

These attacks on the rights of American citizens can be called nothing but unjust and cruel, and it is a shame that Iowa is still behind the curve.

The fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage should do far more for those living in it than it is currently doing. The current inaction is inexcusable.

That inaction can and will change.

With the 2020 election just across the horizon, the people of Iowa have a chance to right these wrongs. It is not just the presidency that is important. No matter who is in the White House, Iowa has the power to do right by the people living within its borders.

We have an opportunity to do the right thing. All it would take is making that transition from hindering the freedoms of our citizens, to doing right by them.

 

Here is my comment in response to the opinion piece:

There is another point of view on this critical case and I want to invite you to take a look at it. What you have missed is the fact that this man is asking to be discriminated against in the same way that women are discriminated against so that he can feel validated in his chosen “identity”. It’s as if this sadomasochistic cult had come to power before women’s suffrage and were asking the Supreme Court to strip them of voting rights so they coul feel like real women. All this would be merely absurd if it wasn’t for the fact that this case could dissolve the legal existence of women as a sex class. And the nasty side effect all this bloviating has on kids who now think they have the wrong bodies, because the gender hierarchy actually sucks majorly.. You know, the kids who are being experimented on with Lupron, a powerful cancer drug, and having their genitals and breasts cut off by unscrupulous surgeons who forget their oath to FIRST DO NO HARM.

Here is an explanation of how this case will affect women’s rights under Title Xl by the Women’s Liberation Front, which filed an amicus brief in this case:

Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC: Frequently Asked Questions

And this is the text of the speech that WoLF member Natasha Chart gave at a rally in front of The Supreme Court:

Natasha-Chart_avatar-164x164“I’ve been told that I am not a nice, inclusive person for saying that the law needs to be able to recognize sex. And not just me, but all the women who don’t believe that human beings can change sex. We’ve been, we’ve even been accused of perpetrating genocide. It’s funny because five years ago, I first started seeing lesbians were being publicly shamed, sexually harassed, and demonized by straight men calling themselves lesbians.

These men also tended to call themselves progressives, feminists … They keep telling us now that they are absolutely indispensable to the women’s movement, and we cannot do without them. Everyone can always see this behavior, and they always get away with it.
I didn’t think — and I still don’t — that sexually harassing lesbians is a good way to be inclusive. So I objected.
It turns out it’s a firing offense on today’s left to complain about men sexually harassing lesbians if that man says he feels like he’s a lesbian.
That harassment still goes on, and if anything, it has gotten worse. Women share shocking screenshots with me from lesbian dating apps, which are now just simply packed wall-to-wall with men. These men have even started getting women’s [social media] profiles suspended for saying no to them and refusing to recognize their gender and validate their feelings.
Across social media, women’s accounts and access to public conversation is under permanent, constant surveillance for offenses against men claiming to be women, with catastrophic penalties for refusing to lie for them to spare their feelings.
Is that nice behavior? What about my feelings? What about the feelings of all the women who have lost all access to public conversation on social media?
I saw that President [Barack] Obama made several moves to end single-sex facilities for women and girls through executive branch orders and funding threats. His administration and now the entire Democratic congressional caucus made a point of insisting on an end to women’s rights to bodily privacy from men whenever we are outside our homes. If a woman complains that a man has dropped his trousers in front of her at a job, the left will shout “Me Too!” in solidarity, and he’ll be cancelled. If a woman complains because he dropped his trousers in front of her at a gym locker, but he says he’s a woman, they’ll cancel her. Is that kind?
Was it inclusive when the women who objected to that [trouser dropping] were fired for it? Women are still being fired if they dare to say anything against this.
Anywhere on the left, some of us may be fired for the offense of appearing at this [alliance] gathering today. None of the women at liberal organizations can say no to this [transgender] agenda or their peers will destroy them, and that makes their consent to this [transgender ideology] — their support for it — as meaningful as a hostage statement.
Last night, a woman wrote to me, a progressive reporter who is outspoken and not shy to hold unpopular opinions, to ask for a quote for this [transgender legal] case. And after she got my reply, she said to me, she wrote, “I just met Aimee [Stephens, the plaintiff in the lawsuit], she prepares for tomorrow, she is a woman.” And I asked her, “In what way is Stephens a woman?” And she said, and I quote, “It’s not a matter of what I think.”
And I’m here [to protest] for her [the reporter] today, even though she probably really dislikes me.
It is the right of all women to speak publicly and be able to petition our government for the redress of our grievances and be able to participate openly in the public sphere. I have seen numerous women banned from social media for pointing out that gender transition treatments leave children sterile for life at ages where they can’t possibly consent to such permanent decisions. But a generation of quirky, stereotype-rejecting kids — many of whom would grow up to identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, many of whom are autistic — are being sterilized as minors now.
And the only crime that the left or social media companies seem to recognize in this is the crime of women objecting to the wholesale sterilization of vulnerable children. For that, we get accused of “promoting genocide.” There are doctors in the U.S. who will go to work today and oversee the chemical castration of little boys, who will put 14-year-old girls into menopause, and give troubled young girls cosmetic mastectomies. And I object — and for that, I’m considered dangerous.
I’ve seen public calls for every type of harm against those of us who object to the end of women’s sex-based rights or who object to the sterilization of children.
To the people who say … the only meaningful type of violence [they recognize] is that I refuse to call a man “she.”
Still others insist it is violent of me to associate with conservatives, in spite of the fact that gender activists associate with lots of conservatives, and I’ve never seen anyone have a problem with that. It’s almost like women who say no to these men [who say they are transgender] are just going to be wrong, no matter what we do.
Sisters, when a man puts you under constant surveillance and retaliates whenever you say no, and huffs about being indispensable, and he makes you lie to spare his feelings, and he always puts you in the wrong — no matter what — that is not a partnership. It’s abuse. Plan a way out before it gets worse. It will get worse.
In closing, to echo my sisters in the U.K., a man can never be a woman. A lesbian can never be male.
My name is Natasha Chart from New York state. I will not be forced to lie. I will not submit.”

~Natasha Chart

SEE VIDEO HERE (yup, it’s Breitbart, because the Left sucks Big Pharma dick.)

 

 

WOMEN’S LIBERATION FRONT FILES FRIEND-OF-THE-COURT BRIEF

justiceWOMEN’S LIBERATION FRONT FILES FRIEND-OF-THE-COURT BRIEF IN HARRIS FUNERAL HOMES V. EEOC AND AIMEE STEPHENS

Case highlights the importance of distinguishing between sex and gender for purposes of interpreting nation’s civil rights laws and highlights First Amendment implications of compelling speech.

WASHINGTON – The Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), an unapologetically radical feminist organization that fights for the rights, privacy, and safety of women and girls, today filed an amicus brief (PDF) in the case of R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Aimee Stephens (U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 18-107).

In that case, a man named Aimee Stephens sued his previous employer, the R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, because the funeral home fired him on the basis of his self-declared “gender identity.” The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its brief, WoLF argues that sex and gender are distinct concepts that should not be conflated. It states that “[l]egallyredefining ‘female’ as anyone who claims to be female results in the erasure of female people as a class. If, as a matter of law, anyone can be a woman, then no one is a woman, and sex-based protections in the law have no meaning whatsoever.”

WoLF argues that the case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to re-affirm previous caselaw holding that discriminatory actions on the basis of sex-stereotyping violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“Congress knew very well what the word ‘sex’ means when it included that word in the list of categories of people in need of civil rights protections,” said Kara Dansky, who serves on the board of the Women’s Liberation Front. “There is no basis, nor is there any reason, for this Court to hold that sex means anything other than everyone knows it means.”

The brief goes on to state: “Importantly, re-affirming the prohibition on sex-stereotyping would also protect gay employees against workplace discrimination because heterosexuality functions as a sex-stereotype, in the sense that society tends to presume that people are heterosexual. Taking an action against a homosexual employee because of that person’s sexuality would, therefore, constitute unlawful sex-stereotype sex discrimination.”

WoLF additionally argues that to require an employer, or anyone, to believe and/or state that men can be women violates the First Amendment. “The notion that a man can be a woman, or that a woman can be a man, is nothing other than a belief system, adhered to by a very small segment of society,” said Natasha Chart, the WoLF board Chair. “No one should be required to agree with that belief system, or to use compelled speech to further it.”

Oral arguments in the case are anticipated to occur on October 8, 2019.

CONTACT: media@womensliberationfront.org

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: