Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
You gave motives to each, you claimed one was trying to shock and another was trying to fit in.
Yet both make them happy and both are shocking to the 'norm'.
You decided which was right and which was wrong based on your own values you decided it was ok for one and not the other.
|
Ok - I suppose I could have been clearer. I wasn't intending to describe motives (though in retrospect it certainly could have been read that way), I was describing effects. In that light, I stand by my assessment of your body modification specialist as a completely unrealistic comparison. However, it is worth saying that even with this point I am discussing on your terms, not mine. My personal belief is that societal norm is a completely subjective term that has limited benefit - particularly when weighed against concerns of sexual or sexual identity discrimination (please read on before reacting to that).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Are you superior to a mother who doesn't want a transexual teaching her children?
|
I suspect you know that superiority has nothing to do with the issue. Legality is much more applicable. In that spirit, I'll direct you to some snippets I found on
Work Place Fairness. You and I both know that parents want all sorts of things, to the point of attempting to impose their will on curricular and legal matters. They don't always get their way, and rightly so. I believe I've seen post disparagingly towards this idea of parental sovereignty in the classroom in the past (
please see this thread for a quick example)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by workplacefairness.org
Until very recently, federal courts have uniformly held that transsexual people are not protected under Title VII, the law which makes sex discrimination illegal, on the ground that Congress did not intend when passing the law for the term "sex" to include transsexualism.
In federal court decisions, however, the Ninth Circuit (the federal appeals court which covers the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) and Sixth Circuit (covering Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee) have concluded that transsexual persons are protected from discrimination under Title VII and other sex discrimination statutes, based upon a more recent U.S. Supreme Court case that considers discrimination based on gender stereotyping to be illegal sex discrimination made illegal by Title VII...
More recently, however, some state courts and state administrative agencies have indicated a willingness to depart from older Title VII precedents and to interpret state and local sex discrimination laws to include transsexual people. These states and cities include Massachusetts, New York City, Connecticut, Hawai’i, Vermont and New Jersey.
|
(emphasis mine)
The inclusion of New Jersey is relevant, as that is where this particular case is coming up.
I wonder if you'll satisfy my curiosity on something Ustwo. Are you playing the part of the gadfly or devil's advocate here? I just have to ask because I've seen you switch tacks several times in this thread, and each position is accompanied by examples that are seemingly chosen for their shock value. I'd still happily discuss with you, but I'm genuinely curious as to where you are coming from...