Can we talk about the equality act?

[Anonymous]

I'd like to hear both views/arguments on this. I see what they are trying to do but it seems like this bill will also have a negative impact on women, as it seems like the bill will allow anyone who identify as women to use the restroom or join womens sports/leagues for example. Am I misuderstanding this? I saw the bill and it seems like it will lead to this in some cases. I don't have anything against LGBTQ, I believe everyone needs to be treated with respect but I think this is a huge gray area that needs to be discussed further as other people who may not be LGBTQ could abuse,I can imagine perverys/pedos abusing this act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to hear both views/arguments on this. I see what they are trying to do but it seems like this bill will also have a negative impact on women, as it seems like the bill will allow anyone who identify as women to use the restroom or join womens sports/leagues for example. Am I misuderstanding this? I saw the bill and it seems like it will lead to this in some cases. I don't have anything against LGBTQ, I believe everyone needs to be treated with respect but I think this is a huge gray area that needs to be discussed further as other people who may not be LGBTQ could abuse,I can imagine perverys/pedos abusing this act.

Yes. Unintended consequences. Just because something has a fine sounding name, does not mean that it is a fine bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to hear both views/arguments on this. I see what they are trying to do but it seems like this bill will also have a negative impact on women, as it seems like the bill will allow anyone who identify as women to use the restroom or join womens sports/leagues for example. Am I misuderstanding this? I saw the bill and it seems like it will lead to this in some cases. I don't have anything against LGBTQ, I believe everyone needs to be treated with respect but I think this is a huge gray area that needs to be discussed further as other people who may not be LGBTQ could abuse,I can imagine perverys/pedos abusing this act.

Yes. Unintended consequences. Just because something has a fine sounding name, does not mean that it is a fine bill.

I totally agree. Title IX is history if this is passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to hear both views/arguments on this. I see what they are trying to do but it seems like this bill will also have a negative impact on women, as it seems like the bill will allow anyone who identify as women to use the restroom or join womens sports/leagues for example. Am I misuderstanding this? I saw the bill and it seems like it will lead to this in some cases. I don't have anything against LGBTQ, I believe everyone needs to be treated with respect but I think this is a huge gray area that needs to be discussed further as other people who may not be LGBTQ could abuse,I can imagine perverys/pedos abusing this act.

Yes. Unintended consequences. Just because something has a fine sounding name, does not mean that it is a fine bill.

. I understand that they want to make sure the LGBT is not discriminated in service, housing, etc. but isn’t that covered under “gender” under the old bill? I think the bill was rushed, and should not have been passed in this form. What rights can’t the LGBT have currently in the old bill? I din’t have issues with them getting married, adopting and living their lives as we do, I have an issue on how the bill is written so broadly that it is subject to abuse.

[Anonymous]

I do not understand your concern about bathrooms. There is nothing now to stop men from dressing as women to enter a women's restroom if they really want to, and yet this doesn't seem to be a problem in practice. As a cis-gendered woman, I have zero concerns about trans women using the restroom alongside me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to hear both views/arguments on this. I see what they are trying to do but it seems like this bill will also have a negative impact on women, as it seems like the bill will allow anyone who identify as women to use the restroom or join womens sports/leagues for example. Am I misuderstanding this? I saw the bill and it seems like it will lead to this in some cases. I don't have anything against LGBTQ, I believe everyone needs to be treated with respect but I think this is a huge gray area that needs to be discussed further as other people who may not be LGBTQ could abuse,I can imagine perverys/pedos abusing this act.

Yes. Unintended consequences. Just because something has a fine sounding name, does not mean that it is a fine bill.

I totally agree. Title IX is history if this is passed.

That would be a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand your concern about bathrooms. There is nothing now to stop men from dressing as women to enter a women's restroom if they really want to, and yet this doesn't seem to be a problem in practice. As a cis-gendered woman, I have zero concerns about trans women using the restroom alongside me.

I don’t have an issue with Trans using women’s bathroom either. I’m not a lawyer but I think someone pretending to be a woman in a bathroom could be jailed if they are found doing something malicious. Not a lot of pervs do this right now because the law is not on their side. This new bill however makes it easier for pervs to do this kind of act. The issue is not trans using women’s bathroom, it’s the other people doing malicious things using this bill because it’s written too broadly, If I’m wrong with this please enlighten me, I really do hope I’m misunderstanding the text. As to sports, why can’t we just have LGBT sports?

[Anonymous]

A concern troll definitely started this thread.

And no, gender discrimination doesn't protect LGBTQ-based discrimination. They are not refusing to hire a "woman" - they are refusing to hire a "gay woman." And that should be illegal by law.

That's the whole point. It's not gender-based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A concern troll definitely started this thread.

And no, gender discrimination doesn't protect LGBTQ-based discrimination. They are not refusing to hire a "woman" - they are refusing to hire a "gay woman." And that should be illegal by law.

That's the whole point. It's not gender-based.

Actually under Bostock it is gender discrimination. Personally I'd like that to be made explicit in federal law so that a future Supreme Court decision can't change it, but right now courts should find that it's gender based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand your concern about bathrooms. There is nothing now to stop men from dressing as women to enter a women's restroom if they really want to, and yet this doesn't seem to be a problem in practice. As a cis-gendered woman, I have zero concerns about trans women using the restroom alongside me.

I don’t have an issue with Trans using women’s bathroom either. I’m not a lawyer but I think someone pretending to be a woman in a bathroom could be jailed if they are found doing something malicious. Not a lot of pervs do this right now because the law is not on their side. This new bill however makes it easier for pervs to do this kind of act. The issue is not trans using women’s bathroom, it’s the other people doing malicious things using this bill because it’s written too broadly, If I’m wrong with this please enlighten me, I really do hope I’m misunderstanding the text. As to sports, why can’t we just have LGBT sports?

At this moment, anyone who commits a criminal act in a women's restroom is subject to criminal penalties for that act. It doesn't matter if it is a man, a trans woman, or a cisgender woman. If it's a crime, it's a crime. This bill would not somehow take away the criminal penalties associated with committing a crime in a women's restroom.

At this moment, and for many, many years before now, transgender women have used women's restrooms without incident. People just didn't realize it was happening because they passed for cisgender women and no one thought about it. During that time, men have also had the opportunity to pose as women to enter women's restrooms if that's how they way to try to commit crimes against women, and yet that simply is not a thing that happens with any kind of regularity to warrant allowing legal discrimination against trans women. Moreover, to the extent the current state of the law does discourage men from trying to pose as women to enter women's restrooms for criminal purposes, those men most likely are just finding different ways to commit those crimes, not becoming law-abiding citizens, so the Equality Act is not likely to result in any increase in crime, except perhaps by anti-trans men who want to make a statement about this act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A concern troll definitely started this thread.

And no, gender discrimination doesn't protect LGBTQ-based discrimination. They are not refusing to hire a "woman" - they are refusing to hire a "gay woman." And that should be illegal by law.

That's the whole point. It's not gender-based.

You’re being presumptuous. I’m not a troll in any way. I just saw a video (from FOX)posted by my SIL through social media about this. Knowing where the news source is from, I googled the bill go check if there are definite merits to the concerns, because I would really hate for her to be correct knowing that she voted and defended Trump in the previous election, and I know that she will use this to attact the current admin.However, I was concerned when I saw the text and here I am checking with other people about the unintended consequences. I really want to hear clear explanations and not just rebuttals deflections about the issue, or at least how the bill can be fixed.

Going back to your point, can a Company actually claim they can’t/refuse to hire a gay woman? Would that stand in court? If Only male and femsle genders are recognized in the law, then wouldn’t the gay woman fall under “woman”, which covers her under the gender equality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand your concern about bathrooms. There is nothing now to stop men from dressing as women to enter a women's restroom if they really want to, and yet this doesn't seem to be a problem in practice. As a cis-gendered woman, I have zero concerns about trans women using the restroom alongside me.

I don’t have an issue with Trans using women’s bathroom either. I’m not a lawyer but I think someone pretending to be a woman in a bathroom could be jailed if they are found doing something malicious. Not a lot of pervs do this right now because the law is not on their side. This new bill however makes it easier for pervs to do this kind of act. The issue is not trans using women’s bathroom, it’s the other people doing malicious things using this bill because it’s written too broadly, If I’m wrong with this please enlighten me, I really do hope I’m misunderstanding the text. As to sports, why can’t we just have LGBT sports?

At this moment, anyone who commits a criminal act in a women's restroom is subject to criminal penalties for that act. It doesn't matter if it is a man, a trans woman, or a cisgender woman. If it's a crime, it's a crime. This bill would not somehow take away the criminal penalties associated with committing a crime in a women's restroom.

At this moment, and for many, many years before now, transgender women have used women's restrooms without incident. People just didn't realize it was happening because they passed for cisgender women and no one thought about it. During that time, men have also had the opportunity to pose as women to enter women's restrooms if that's how they way to try to commit crimes against women, and yet that simply is not a thing that happens with any kind of regularity to warrant allowing legal discrimination against trans women. Moreover, to the extent the current state of the law does discourage men from trying to pose as women to enter women's restrooms for criminal purposes, those men most likely are just finding different ways to commit those crimes, not becoming law-abiding citizens, so the Equality Act is not likely to result in any increase in crime, except perhaps by anti-trans men who want to make a statement about this act.

Follow up question on this. So in the previous example, we used men who are disguised as wonen in women’s bathroom. Let’s remove the trans women in the discussion, they are not an issue as far as I’m concered. With the new bill, can a man( not in disguise, and not LGBTQ), say he wants to use the bathroom because he identifies as a woman?

[Anonymous]

Trans women are women! Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trans women are women! Deal with it.

But we are changing the definition of “women” so that it no longer means Biologically female, correct?

[Anonymous]

What is a woman? Is just saying "I'm a woman" enough? Does it matter?